These so-called governments are in reality only
great bands of robbers and murderers, organized ,
disciplined , and constantly on the alert .
Lysander Spooner, 1869
The Political Warfare J
A right , to be fi nely so, must be right in itself;
yet many things have obtained the name of
Aits, which are originally founded in wrong.
Thomas Paine, 1780
Forces Underground
Volume IV
Spring 1998
Number 3
PUBLISHED QUARTERLYBY
John P. Zenger Press, Ltd.
s 10.00
NETWORK INFORMATION SHARING
Was Abraham Lincoln
Really Honest?
“Military government is thus
placed within the domain of inter-
national law, its rules the laws of
war, while martial law is within
the cognizance of municiple law.”
-Major General W.E. Birkhimer ;
L.L.B., 1914.
One Artist . . .
Illustrating the Obscure
Fallacies of American Politics
Illustrative Newsletter Explaining the
Importance of the History of Law, and
Solution to Emergency Powers.
Four issues per year Jor donation of 1 5.00
Post Ojjice Money Order or Cash ONL Y to:
Michael Paul: McChnton.
general delivery.
Girard Post Office.
Girard, Pennsylvania.
For One 16-Page Issue. Send donation of 5.00.
The RESISTER
Publisher
John Peter Zenger
Managing Editor
SFC Steven M. Harry, USA, SF(Ret.)
Associate Editors
CDR Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson, USN (Ret.)
Dr. Susan L.M. Muck;
D. van Oort;
Co ntribut i ng Edit ors
Gov. Zebulon R. Vance, NC, CSA;
I CDR James Lawrence, USN, SEAL (Ret.);
Martin Luther, Officer of Marines;
John Holton
Research Department
Fisk Research Associates; Molly Pitcher;
OSIS Research
Illustrator
Michael Paul; McClinton
Advertising & Market ing
Peter Yarborough
Counselor
Kevin L. Jamison
Distribution
Sandy Brighton
V.
/'he Ri MMIK is published quarterly by
Special Forces Underground and John P.
Zenger Press. Address correspondence to:
Boxholdcr, PC) Box 350*16, I a\ etteville,
North Carolina 2X303, U.S.A. Subscrip-
tion price: U.S., S3 5.00; Foreign,
SUSSO.OO; Library, SI 00.00 per year. Sin-
gle copy; SI ().()(). The editor will consider
unsolicited material, bur is not obligated to
acknowledge receipt or to return manu-
scripts. Any contributor who is not notified
bv The Ri-sM'I k within 90 days after sub-
mitting a manuscript may assume that The
Rl mm i k is unable to publish the material.
Copu'iglu 1 199X b\ /'/»(' R l' s|s 1 1 u. All
rights, reserved. Requests to reprint or re
publish any article in this issue, by am
means or method now known, or invented
in the future, must be submitted in writting
to the publisher.
Statement of Kditorial Policy
The philosopln nt / Ke-: is straightforward.
I ndividuat rights, strict constitutional construct ion,
limited go\ eminent. Patriot ism, laisse/ taire capital-
ism, and republicanism: I n short, the principles upon
w hich America was founded.
W e oppose; statism, socialism, collectivism, rac-
ism, altruism, internationalism, tribalism, unlmited de-
mocracy, pull politics, and the “New W orld ( haler:
In short, the ideologies of all tyrannies.
( )ur philosophical framework is ( )hjecti\ ism* (the
rational morality of self interest — I ite). Our political
philosophv is grounded in the works of the I- tamers
of the Constitution (gov ernment as servant, not mas-
ter — I .ibern ). Our economic philosophy is laissez-
faire capitalism (the origin of true rights — I’ropei t \ ).
Our goal is the restoration of the Constitutional
Republic as originally designed and conceived by its
lounders.
These so-called governments
are in reality only great bands
of robbers and murderers ,
organized , disciplined ,
and constantly on the alert.
Lysander Spooner, 1 869
A right , to be tritely so ,
must be right in itself
yet many things have obtained
the name of rights, which are
^ originally founded in wrong.
Thomas Paine, 1 780
Volume IV Spring 1998 Number 3
CONTENTS
FEATURES
Correspondence 04
Editorials & Commentaries
The National Race Inquisition 11
America’s Death by 1 ,000 Cuts 18
Horror Quotes 26
Commentaries From Readers 30
Obituaries 31
Periodic Intelligence Report
Missing American POWs: What Happened? 32
Books & Reviewables
Our Royalty 74
The Merciless Indian Savages 78
The ANTIFEDERALIST
Bela Ab/ug:
The First Jewish Woman in Congress
SFC Steven M. Barry, USA (Ret“ 47
Green Cross
Natalie Grant 58
What is Political Correctness?
William Lind 63
Washington Weaselspeak
L.S. Spooner 66
$
Vol. IV, No. 3
1
The RESISTER
WACO: THE RULES
OF ENGAGEMENT
Visa, MC, AMEX call: 1-800-201-7892, Ext. 45
° rSend BHN Sales Co.
$25.00 1347 Worsted Drive
Check or Money Order to: Fayetteville, NC 28314
All is NOT as it seems!
Every American must see this film!
Acclaim for WACO: The Rules of Engagement
The seminal work on the Waco tragedy.
Richard Reavis, author The Ashes of Waco
"When people sit down and watch this movie political
differences are washed away by the common rear of
a government gone berserk.”
Michael McNulty, co- producer
“The Davidians were legally and morally justified in
resisting as they did.”
James Bowman, The American Spectator
BACK ISSUES & SUBSCRIPTION
The following back issues of The Resister are available. Prices are determined by availahlity oj
remaining stocks and are subject to change as stocks are depleted. They will never be reprinted as
single issues. We will not honor third-party offers! (Check our distributor list on page 00. They
may have sold out issues in stock.)
Vol. II, No. 3 - Vol. II I, No. 3 SOLD OUT
Vol. Ill, No. 4 S20.00
Vol. IV, No. 1 SOLD OUT
Vol. IV, No. 2 $25.00
Conservative Review (Most issues available) $7.00 ea.
Stapled newsletter versions of The Resister( Vol. I, No.l - Vol. II, No. 2) are no longer available.
SUBSCRIPTION: $35.00 (One year) Please indicate with which issue (current or next) you
wish to start.
$10.00 (currentissue)
Send orders to:
The RESISTER
PO Box 35046
Fayetteville, NC 28303-5046
Cash, Money Order, or Check.
2
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
Thf
PARTISAN
The Journaf of the
American Freecfom
rill! TIME FOR
IS OVER!
In the struggle against tyranny, knowledge is your most powerful!
weapon. At last there is a rational, objective, in-depth journal with
cutting edge information dedicated to those who think freedom is
worth fighting for.
The Partisan is a new magazine that satisfies a growing desire for a rational, objective, cutting edge
publication dedicated to those Americans concerned with issues of individual freedom.
The Partisan will have an editorial policy of staunchly defending the entire Bill of Rights and not
just the Second Amendment. Although The Partisan will take a no-compromise stand on moral and
philosophical issues relating to freedom The Partisan wants to make it quite clear that it will not enter-
tain nor tolerate any form of racism, Anti-Semitism, patriot mythology or conspiracy theory paranoia that
has unfortunately tainted that part of our culture concerned with issues of freedom, survivial and fire-
arms.
In addition to reviewing weapons and equipment The Partisan will also have articles on tactics,
preparedness and fieldcraft. The Partisan intends to break new ground with its in-depth reporting on
political and philosophical issues as they relate to individual freedom.
Yes, I’m ready to join in the fight for freedom.
Please send me a one year (four issues) sub-
scription to The Partisan for the introduc-
tory rate of only $19.95. (cash or check only)
The Partisan
P.O. Box 1085 Dept.TR
Longmont, CO. 80502
WWW.PARTISAN.COM OR UZI1@FRI1.COM ,
Vol. IV, No. 3
3
The RESISTER
The law per verted! ... The la w, I say, not only turned
from its proper purpose hut made to follo w and entirely
contrary purpose!
Frederic Bastiat
Corre
Is usurpation is the exercise of power which another
hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power
beyond right , which nobody can ha ve a right to.
John I ,ockc, 1 6S1
ence
A Letter From the Editor
Sergeant Major
Douglas Van Der Pool
S (I M Doug Van Dor Pool has
never been associated with, nor
was he ever a supporter of. The
Resister. In lact, S( »M \ an I )er Pool was
an opponent of The Resister from its first
issue. I low ever, in 1994,SGM Van Der
Pool was deliberated victimized bv
CSM William Rambo, and subjected
to arbitrary - administrative action
(transfer) bv CSM Kamho, tor no other
reasons than a) be was more intelligent
than CSM Kamho, b) be bad a better
commaml of the I nglisb language than
CSM Kamho, and c) he opposed CSM
Rambo’s (blitbef till v stupid) {dans to
recruit Ranger senior noncommis-
sioned officers to be Special forces
loam Sergeants. SCIM Van Dor Pool
chose retirement in lieu of transfer to
avoid the loss of medical care for a fam
il\ member (which was available only
at fort Bragg which Kamho knew).
So, while “Badge - hunter’ Kamho
sits in the CS \S()C CSM office, the
man w ho should be sitting there, S( i 1\ I
Van Der Pool, was, tor practical pur
poses, forced out of the Army bv a
“Bone Clone, f ull story, next issue.
(Still fixing promotion boards, Bill? Or
did the “inconclusive” Article 1 5-6 in-
vestigation give vou pause? Or is
I S \SOC l( i still corrupt?)
American Renaissance
Conference
T his year's American Kenais
same Conference will be held
at the Milton Motel at Dulles
International Airport, Virginia, from
2 S to .>() August, f or those of you not
f amiliar w ith American Renaissance (see
the ad on page 00), it’s a twelve page
monthly newsletter published and ed-
ited bv Mr. Jared I a\ lor, author of Paved
1 1 it/? (iood Intentions: The f ailure of Race
Relations in Contemporary America, and
editor of a recently-released collection.
The Real American Dilemma: Race, Im-
migration, and the f uture o/ America.
Articles and features in American Re
naissance address the question, “Does
race matter?” American Renaissance wx\\
ers bravely answer, ‘A es, it does.”
I am honored to be a speaker at this
years American Re
naissance Conference. ■
I he subject of my pre
sentation will be “The
Army’s lujual Oppor-
tunity Commissariat.”
I f you are interested in
hearing my bare
knuckles presentation
about how parroting
the dogmas of cul-
tural M arxistn and
egalitarianism have " ""
become more important to career sol
diers than technical and tactical profi
ciencv, and how the Army’s egalitarian
recruiting and personnel policies are a
distinct threat to national security, find
the time to attend the American Re
naissance Conference. See the enclosed
fiver for registration details.
Given the obvious anti white po-
grom that defines ‘President’ Clinton’s
National Inquisition on Race (the so
called “national dialogue on race”), this
is going to be an extremely important
- and highly publicized — opportu
nity for principled anti Balkanization
dissidents to air their arguments against
“multiculturalism.”
Alas... The Resistor's
money [cannot] be
spent with, “uncen-
sored,” “conservative”
mainstream publica-
tions.
Adventures in Advertising
The Washington Times
dvertising dollars for The Re-
sister are very scarce. So when
.they can be saved up they need
to be targeted and spent carefully. After
serious deliberation the decision was
l he Wa
A:
made to place a display ad in The 1 1 'ash
ington Times llee/Ay Tdition for three
weeks. After all, the\ bill themseb e> as
tireless champions of uncensored news
and the bulwark of mainstream con-
servative journalism — right? And it
has a halfway decent circulation that
reaches, from what I can determine, a
representative cross section of The
Resisters demonstrated reading audi-
ence. Alas, it display ad promoting The
Resister is not suitable tor, nor can The
Resister's monev be
spent with, “uncen-
sored,” “conservative”
mainstream publica
tions. I his raises the
interesting question,
“Why?”
A f ter obtaining a
rate card, I called !\ 1 r.
Paul Teller, of The
1 1 ash i ng ton / 7 /;/ es
magazine division to
talk over the details.
Naturally (and properly), he wanted to
know what The Resister w as about ami
what the displa\ ad looked like, s<> f
told him a brief histon of The Resister ,
described its anti cultural Marxist and
anti democratic -collect i\ ism editorial
policy, and faxed him a cop\ of m\ ar
tide “Why Not Patriotism? with the
draft of the display ad artwork. \\ hen I
called him back he said, “ I his is great!
Just the kind of publication we like to
advertise.” I.ncouraged, I put the fin
ishing touches on the display art, cut
Washington Times a check for the agreed
upon amount, and sent both via oxer-
night to meet the deadline for the ad
run. So far, so good.
Meanwhile, Dr. Muck had mailed
me a cartoon from The Washington
Times. It was a takeoff on The Heart of
Darkn ess , d e p i c t i n g 4 P r e s i d e n t ’ C lin to n
as Kurtz and Independent Prosecutor
Kenneth Starr as Willard. Because 1
couldn’t stop laughing every time I
looked at it, I called The Washington
4
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
Times to get permission to run it in The
Resister . 1 talked to the artist, Ken
1 1 un ter, who also wanted to know what
The Resistor was about. So I told him
the same thing I told Mr. Teller, and we
agreed on a price for a clean flat of the
art.
The next day, I received a fax from
Mr. Teller with “Urgent! Call me!”
scrawled across it. (You see it coming,
don’t you? I did.) I called Mr. Teller and
he explained that his editors wanted to
see a “recent copy of The Resistor." Mr.
Teller suggested that 1 pick an issue with
articles that would “put The Resister in
the best light.” I think Mr. Teller really
did mean well, and from my conversa-
tions with him I believe he did support
running the ad. But, I don’t play those
games. The Resistor stands on its own
merits and has nothing to hide editori-
ally. So 1 sent a copy of the recent edi-
tion.
Two days later I received another
“Urgent! Call me!” fax from Mr. Teller.
I le told me that after looking through
the issue I’d sent, the editors, “got ner-
vous about your ad and decided to not
run it.” I joked with him about it, then
asked, “Who got to you, the VCheKu ?”
“Oh no,” he said, “nothing like that.”
(Funny, he knew I was talking about
the ADI ..) According to M r. Teller, af-
ter my conversation with cartoonist
I I un ter, Mr. I lunter went to the edi-
tors to “express his concerns” about The
Resistor , and during the editorial meet-
ing weighed in heavily against its ad.
The editors, according to Mr. Teller,
then decided The /^cv/.v/cr “might offend
some of our readers.” Objections from
Mr. Teller pointing out that they didn’t
have to read it fell upon deaf ears.
Now, it’s a known fact that the
I CheKa has their snitches, censors and
Thought Monitors in every corner of
the publishing business. Otherwise,
you wouldn’t he inundated with the
mind-numbing Kstablishment ap-
proved drivel you read every day. I don’t
know if Mr. 1 1 u liter is a J CheKisti, but
given that 1 told him The Resistor was
“stridently anti-socialist and vehemently
patriotic,” and for a cartoonist he seems
to throw a lot of weight around The
Washington Times' “unccnsored” edito-
rial offices, I have my reasoned suspi-
cions. Is The Washington Times
controlled opposition? (A classic
I eninist tactic.) I don’t know. But 1 did
go hack and review its editorial content
for several past months, and they’re,
um, soft on issues the V CheKa and the
Sekretno-po/iticheskoye Upravleniye (Se-
cret Political Directorate — i.e. CFR)
disapprove of.
Oh, before I forget; it only took The
Washington limes six weeks to return
The Resistors money. According to M r.
Hiroshi Goto in accounting, “large
sums” need to he approved by the presi-
dent of the Washington Times Corpo-
ration. In other words, they were
collecting interest on The Resistors de-
posit.
The New American
N ever one to he deterred from
attaining my objective, I ob-
tained a rate card and publish-
ing schedule from the John Birch
Society’s The New American. (Second
choice only because proportional to
their circulation they
are more expensive.)
After discussing de-
tails with Mme. Julie
Du Franc, advertising
and circulation man-
ager, I repeated the
formalities of filling
out the placement
agreement and faxed
it, along with a copy of
the ad artwork, to JBS.
No response. (Do you
see it coming? I did.)
Then, a week later, the
rejection letter, signed
by Mme. Du Franc, assuring me “...we
sincerely appreciate your interest in our
magazine. However, after reviewing
your proposed ad in the context of our
editorial position we have reluctantly
decided to decline.” No mention of who
“we” are.
Now, all this is well and proper. A
publication is the property of its owner
(or owners), and he (or “they”) may dis-
criminate against advertisers as he (or
“they”) sees fit. 1 certainly do. But The
New American rejection really peaked
my interest, because J BS members and
The New American subscribers have
(historically) been supportive of The
Resistor. Neither was The New Ameri-
can adverse to publishing Quartered
Among Us,” a (tastefully abridged by
I NA editors) version of my Resister
article, “Subversion of the Third
Amendment.” Nor were they adverse
to requesting further articles, or invit-
ing me to the Regional Council Dinner
in Charlotte, North Carolina, in May
1997. Nor was Mr. John McManus,
publisher of The New American , ad-
verse to offering me reprint rights to
“anything you want from The New
American ” — or ad space . Curiouser
and curiouser.
I called a source (who prefers to re-
main unnamed) in the John Birch So-
ciety who is privy to management
decision policies. Not to sell non* for
“pull” or have the source intervene on
my behalf, just (given the foregoing) for
an explanation. Besides, “in the con-
text of our editorial objectives” doesn’t
say anything, especially since I have yet
to find a statement of The New
American's “editorial objectives” any-
where — at any time — in the publica-
tion. I guess I was expected to “just
know.” The source seemed genuinely
confused at the decision not to run the
ad, revenue notvvith
standing. The expla-
nation, however, was
revealing:
I checked around
and... the worn was
that some portion of
our readership/
membership might
construe the ad as an
endorsement of (sigh)
‘militancy’ and ‘active
resistance, which are
incompatible with the
essentially educational
approach of the J BS
and I NA. In all fairness, let it he noted
that we have turned away some very
lucrative advertising from ‘mainstream’
conservative publishers and authors
(Rush Timbaugh-stvle trend-suckers)
and from |in vour words | the ‘aluminum
foil hat’ crowd.... We also had a mini
melodrama about two years ago over an
ad for The I .a si Ditch , which we ran only
once (thereby giving them a perfect ad-
line: “ The publication rejected as loo
Kxtreme’ by the John Birch Society’’).
So there’s a certain skewed consistency
to all of this, and the rejections span the
spectrum.
Personally, I disagree with that policy,
as do others at TN A. 1 sav: If someone
wants to buy ad space, and he’s not
peddling collectivist trash or outright
smut, let’s take his money and assume
that people capable of reading and
understanding our editorial product
appreciate the need for some discretion
in evaluating the advertised products.
Which is The Resistor's advertising
policy in a nutshell.
Now, all this is well
and proper. A publi-
cation is the property
of its owner... and
he... may discrimi-
nate against advertis-
ers as he sees fit. I
certainly do.
Vol.IV, No. 3
5
The RESISTER
“Adventures in Advertising”
T hor
here is a tactic from the old
School of Musketry (applica-
tion of mass rifle fire) called “ad-
vancing under the cone,” which essen-
tially means that, when vour firing line
raises their sights to engage distant tar-
gets (“plunging fire”), the enemy troops
who were under fire could advance be-
cause your fire would he passing over
their heads. The counter to that tactic
was to have everybody set their sights
on “battle sight,” which means the apo-
gee of the beaten zone (which extended
from the firing line to “strike” at the
range setting) “grazed” the height of an
advancing soldier — a substantially
shorter distance. But doing so allowed
distant formations to advance to within
at least the farthest extent of the “graz-
ing fire” beaten zone and provide
“plunging” covering fire for their
pinned-down chums. The counter to
that was the use of “multiple sights,”
but that diminished the effectiveness
of fire in each “multiple sight” beaten
zone. A tactical dilemma, and one of
the reasons commanders get paid the
big bucks and soldiers learn that bayo-
nets are not for opening ration tins.
What has this allegory to do with “Ad-
ventures in Advertising?”
The Resister s sight setting is “battle
sight” in order to bring our domestic
enemies under effective fire (although
it has small knots of sharpshooters who
are detailed to harry and harass the
enemy’s supporting line beyond The
Resister s grazed beaten zone).
The Washington rimes sight setting
is “plunging,” which means their sights
are set for long range and our domestic
enemies are free to “advance under the
cone;” which (as I ,enin would tell you)
is the ideal sight setting for “controlled
opposition.” (Lots of noise and activ-
ity, no hits.)
The New /I me vie an uses “mixed
sights.” A compromise compounded
(most notably within the past couple
years) bv its increasing reluctance to
take particularly careful aim at its tar-
gets regardless of their range. 1 asked
an early J BS member about this. “Well,”
|mv source] said, “in the early years
Welch almost broke his spine leaning
over backwards to avoid any smear of
anti-Semitism’ or ‘racism. ’God knows
whv. They’ll give it to you anyway, and
they did. Even so, any of [ American
Opinions | early writers who got a little
too precise in their finger pointing got
fired, or marginalized until they cpiit.
Like Eric Butler in Australia and Dr.
Revilo P. Oliver.” | Privileged Conver-
sation. 15 May 1998.]
I wasn’t all that surprised when The
Washington limes refused an ad from
The Resister. Even “conservative” news-
papers are staffed by second -handers
who are afraid of being called names bv
their VCheKa censors or America’s
parasite classes. Dr. Samuel Francis, a
national columnist, was fired from The
Washington limes when he dared to
speak his mind in an address he deliv-
ered at a American Renaissance con-
ference three years ago. / Chefs a censors
expressed their “concerns” to their The
Washington Times editorial puppets,
who danced bobbly under their strings
on cue.
All this is an object lesson for those
who still hold out hope for the future.
The foregoing illustrates how fractured
is the opposition to collectivism in
America. While ______
America’s Destroyers
won’t hesitate to fi-
nance or support anv
effort from anv of
their multitudinous
factions that have any
promise of further
weakening America,
those who are making
any effort to save
America isolate them-
selves in self-con-
tained ideological —
enclaves, which are then picked off by
our Destroyers one by-one; or are
simply bypassed in the knowledge that
they can be mopped-up later. Part of
the reason for this phenomenon is that,
for some unfathomable reason, most
on the Right are frightened to death of
being called names by Leftists. It only
takes one shriek of“anti-Scmite!” from
our VCheKa , or “racist!” from the Na-
tional All- African Communist Party
(NAACP) to set the Right to whim-
pering, “No I’m not! Whv, some of my
best friends. ...!”Thc Right then goes to
absurd — and self-destructive -
lengths to appear “reasonable.” Which
means they compromise, appease,
obligingly “unfocus,” and disassociate
themselves from any group who gets
smeared with Leftists swear words;
which thereby undermines any possi-
bility of future opposition to our De-
No wonder the
Mensheviks (the
“Republicans”) are
called “The Stupid
Party.” I prefer to call
them the “Useful
Idiot Party.”
s troyers. No wonder the Mensheviks
( t h e “ R e p u b 1 i c a n s ” ) a r e c a 1 1 e d “ I ' h e S tu -
pid Party.” I prefer to call them the
“Useful Idiot Party.” Can the Right
form a National Front to oppose col-
lectivism? No, that has been forbidden.
Mail
nder normal circumstances I'm
a reasonably accommodating
guv I will make an honest ef-
fort to conform, insofar as possible, to
the addressing desires or requirements
of Jurists. But, come on gu\ s; six to ten
line addresses (some of which include
judicial district and countv plat inhu-
mation) just aren’t going to cut it. 1 lere’s
what I will do:
Christian Name, Family Name
c/o Delivery address
City, State, PC (5 number / ip)
Fo be honest, I don’t quite under
stand how fixed addresses, two letter
state abbreviations, or numerical codes
^ ^ that are designed to ex-
pedite the routing of
the mails, strip one of
one’s individual rights.
I am certain, however,
that I will receive an
education here fairly
soon.
Please indicate if
vo u r c o r re s po n d e n ce
is for a new subscrip
tion or a renewal. The
crystal ball is broken.
~~ Speaking of crystal
, look at vour printed label. I Jnder
your name is a Volume number and an
Issue number. I hat is the last issue in
your subscription. As a reminder, you’ll
get a renewal notice with the issue cor
responding to the volume and issue
number on vour label. Also, please
clearly print vour name and address on
all correspondence. I he decoding ma-
chine is broken also. And don’t forget
to send a change of address card if you
move. I lost mv tarot cards.
balls
Rcpuh
T
mblicanism at Work
wclvc percent of qualified vot-
ers responded to the literacy
test. Of those who responded
54 percent failed to correctly answer the
question, “Which article of the Con-
stitution delegates to the Supreme
Court authority to interpret the Con-
stitution?” 1 he correct answer is none.
6
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
The Supreme Court arrogated to itself
that “authority” in a series of decisions
beginning with Marbury v. Madison.
Everybody who answered the question
correctly will find a self addressed and
postage paid ballot included with this
issue. Again “Yes” is a vote to go bi-
monthly (which will entail a rate in-
crease), and “No” is a vote to retain the
status quo. (The ballots were supposed
to have been mailed in April, but I de-
cided to extend the deadline to this
issues publication date. There’s no big
hurry. The logistics involved are enor-
mous.)
The Resister s Publishing
Schedule
S everal readers have inquired
about The Resistors publishing
schedule. The most frequently
asked question is why The Resister , as a
quarterly, always seems to be one sea-
son behind. The reason is simple. The
Resister goes to press at the end of any
given quarter, not at the beginning. Re-
member, IR began as an “under-
ground” published by active duty
Special Forces soldiers. This meant that
martial duties took precedence over the
publishing schedule. Between duties
and deployments! R’s schedule slipped,
week by week, toward the end of the
quarter. Now that I’m retired, TR’s pub-
lication schedule has stabilized. But if I
skipped one season, (for example, if this
issue was Summer 1998, instead of
Spring 1998), I’d get huge bales of mail
asking where the Spring issue was, even
though the volume and issue numbers
remained in sequence. So, The Resister
will continue to go to press at the end of
the quarterly season.
Resister Radio
I n a rather surprising development,
a local Fayetteville radio station ap
proached me to do a weekly radio
program. The station is question is
“Radio 1 2 T 0 — The Fort” (I didn’t
know radio stations could identify
themselves with a name instead of a call
sign. It’s FCC call sign is VVFAI, 1230
AM.) “Resister Radio” airs every
Wednesday from 1800 - 1900R. I have
no idea how long this is going to con-
tinue. The owner said he wanted “con-
troversial” anti-liberal content. He got
it! The first broadcast resulted in a com-
plaint to the FCC from some female
“soldier” who objected to being referred
to as a parasite. The owner burst in dur-
ing the third ad break, ecstatic because
the aggrieved female demanded equal
time. He told her “equal time” costs
$600.00 per hour, minimum of four,
one-hour broadcasts. I like this guy’s
style!
The last group who wanted a “Re-
sister Radio” broadcast, KMAK 100.3
FM, the “Tour of Duty” show, appar-
ently couldn’t (or wouldn’t) handle the
heat. I f you’ve been trying to catch “ Re-
sister Radio” on KMAK you’ll have
noticed that I’m conspicuous by my ab-
sence. I rarely get invited back as a guest
on talk radio shows. Maybe it’s because
1 keep saying that the Kent State crowd
should have been hosed-down with a
machine gun, instead of a one squad
M -l rifle volley.
Steven M. Barry
From Readers
An Open Letter From
MacDill AFB
T his letter is addressed to old
family Reds, central bankers,
military traitors (past and
present), academia, media pundits,
“civil rights” activists, and “Greens.”
Your worst fears are justified; Special
f orces Underground is real. It s not just
a subtitle on The Resisters masthead.
Worse for you, is that it’s not just in
Special Forces. It exists in all branches
of the military, in federal agencies,
among civilians, and in several foreign
countries.
I am an old Special Forces active duty'
soldier. I’ve worked with people in all
branches of the military, alphabet soup
federal agencies, police departments,
and civilians. While most people I’ve
worked with are passive supporters of
resistance to your “global community,”
there are some who arc willing to ac-
tively defend what they believe in.
1 will continue to perform my ap-
pointed military duties in a profes-
sional manner. I will publicly agree with
your collectivist policies and parrot your
slogans. I pay my taxes, don’t belong to
any “militia,” and won’t join any “ex-
tremist” group. For all outside appear-
ances I am one of your “global
community” peasants.
Having traveled extensively I have
seen firsthand the results of failed col-
lectivist governments who looted their
countries into squalor. Most politically
attuned people I know have seen it also
and know that the only way you can
achieve your “global community” is bv
doing the same to America. Some think
resistance to this is futile. Maybe it is.
But we are willing to fight you, and
m a ke yo u p ay dearly fo r you r a r rogan c e .
We are moral, principled, and believe
in the original Constitution and the
philosophies that define it. You see, your
mistake was that you thought we’d just
mumble our oath and then contradict
it when ordered to. But you — you pro-
moters of the “brotherhood of man-
kind” — are the enemies domestic we
are sworn to defend the Constitution
against. We didn’t choose you as the
enemy. By your collectivist ideologies
and actions you self-selected.
We pray to the God you scorn that
the day never arrives when we are fi-
nally compelled to turn againstyou what
you expected us to do to enemies for-
eign. If that day does arise, lament. For
I, and others like me, have been trained
in the blackest of arts, and the darkest
of crafts. Your minions are useless
cattle. They cannot protect you. You
cannot hide. We know who you arc, hut
you’ll never know whether der guten
Soldat Schwenk you hired is one of us
— or not.
So, to all you altruist-collectivist “glo-
bal citizens:” You will find no joy in
your New World Order.
Defector in Place
USSOCOM
M y subscription was trans-
ferred from Conservative
Review. I like Sue II uck a
lot. I’m not sure if I’ll renew or not be-
cause I can’t decide whether you’re cn-
jovingyour passion and publishing this
to indulge your ego or whether The Re-
sister has any potential. I don’t have time
to let off steam and I onlv support or-
ganizations which offer the possibility’
of productive real world results. M avbe
it’s just that I’m smarter than you. As
proof of that I offer the fact that I got
out of the Army — honorably — a lot
earlier than you. And every generation
of I Iuttons was in the USA or CSA.
The problem: you’re too strident
and needlessly arrogant. Ask yourself
what your mission is.
It may also be a case of limited intel-
ligence, in which case I can’t help vou,
but to state, as you have, that you don’t
want to put your material on the
Vol. IV, No. 3
7
The RESISTER
internet or establish a web site is the
absolute height of stupidity.
I live and work at ground zero of the
information age and I can tell you cat-
egorically that if you don’t learn to use
the internet you are absolutely nowhere
in the 21st Century. The Clintons,
Gore, ct al, will be delighted that you
are confining your efforts to distribut-
ing printed media via the LIS mail.
Think about it. What is your mis-
sion?
Virgil 1 1 utton
Santa Clara, CA
I also like Dr. I Jack. She was an early
supporter and advisor to The Resister, and
has donated a significant part of her li-
brary to The Resister s research archive.
She also was instrumental in organizing
The Resister’? “little old lady net " that is
engaged in rescuing anti -Communist
publications dating from the 1930s
through 1 950s from library dumpsters and
musty attics.
Of course 'The Resister exists to “ in-
dulge " my ego. / created it. My actions de-
veloped it. My efforts continue to expand
it. 1 am proud of it and what I've accom-
plished to date. Typical of Herd think, you
are confusing self-confidence with arro-
gance. But , then, in this degenerate age of
“ sacrifice "I suppose that should be expected.
Personally , I cannot fathom the value
of self effacementin partisan discussion. A
faceless “one" does not think. I think , and I
will not divorce my ideas and my conclu-
sions from myself. However , if you prefer
egoless publications , perhaps you should
subscribe to the Stalinist The Nation or
the Communist Party USA's Political Af-
fairs.
A few Conservative Review subscrib-
ers have requested to be dropped because
The Resister is “ too strident , "or “ too ve-
hement. "As if polite discussion by “ conser-
vatives' " with or about the Left has ever
accomplished anything or reversed the will-
ful destruction they wreak about us. 1 call
it the “ Chamberlain Syndrome. "Maybe I
should start calling it the “ Buckley Syn-
drome. "1 guess it 's safer and more “ intelli-
gent " to have no principles , appease ,
compromise , and “be liked , "than stand on
principle and f ight back. Nice try. Argu-
ments from intimidation speak volumes
about the issuer , but say nothing about the
intended target. They don't work on me.
However , you do have a good point
about the anarchnet. It's obviously unin-
telligent to not give away for free that
which involves considerable effort and ex-
pense to produce. Why , I could work my IS
hour days , post The Resister on the
anarchnet , and thereby “serve" the
“ consumer's needs" by being a slave to
countless free-lunchers. Good plan! That's
a great “help. " I'll think about it.
Meanwhile , while Cli nton-Gore
apparatchik are f ocused on the anarchnet ,
TU just plod along dully with printed mat-
ter ; distribute in the archaic US mail , and
offer my ovation through print ads to those
who may find it of value and volunteer to
subscribe to it.
As to d"he Resisted “mission," if you
mean in the sense of Master of Business
Administration Newspeak, The Resister
has no mission. If you are asking in clear
English what flic Resister is meant to
accomplish. The Resister!? purpose is to so-
lidify resistance, within the military, to
America's descent into socialism. So in that
sense, T he Resister!? “mission" is to find
those whose minds have not been perma-
nently mangled in Dewey Camps or re-
duced to tapioca before the Telescreen (or
“surfing" the anarchnet). That frightens
the hell out of America's leftist destroyers.
And it should. Civilians who subscribe are
supporters of that purpose.
As to “productive real world results, "
pray that never becomes necessary.
Steven M. Barry
Y our descriptive term “Dewey
Camp” for compulsory, gov
eminent dictated public educa-
tion is so correct. In case your readers
would like to know exactly why they
should loath comrade John Dewey and
bring ropes to school board meetings,
this quote should do:
In a world that has so largely engaged
in a mad and often brutally harsh race
for material gain by means of ruthless
competition, it behooves the school to
make ceaseless and intelligently
organized efforts to develop above all else
the will for co-operation and the spirit
which sees in every other individual one
who has an equal right to share [sic!] in
the cultural and material fruits of
collective human invention, industry,
skill and knowledge. The supremacy of
this aim in mind and character is
necessary for other reasons than as an
offset to the spirit of inhumanity bred
by economic competition and
exploitation. It is necessary to prepare
the coming generation for a new and
more just and humane society which is
sure to come, and which, unless hearts
and minds are prepared by education, is
likely to come attended with all the evils
that result from social changes effected
by violence.
One can readily see how the bacte-
rium of Marxism-Leninism entered
our schools and infected the minds of
generations of students — and the con-
sequences of that infection with which
we re living today.
Your Model Soviet citizen.
G o r d o n I re n c h a rd
Alexandria, I awisiana
A n article by D. van Oort in
Vol.IV, No. 2 raised the issue of
personal ownership of nuclear
devices. T his was in the context of re-
sponding to a package-deal conversa-
tion stopper (i.e., if you believe in
ownership of personal weapons, do you
want everyone to own nukes?). While
the answer/discussion provided (range,
destructive path) was an excellent re-
sponse to the question, it raised an-
other issue that was not addressed.
Since only individuals have rights and
government can only have powers that
are ceded to it bv individuals, how can
government have a right to nukes/nerve
gas/biological weapons that is not first
a right of the individual? f urther, I am
not at all convinced that the liar-in-chief
or two zoomies in a bunker are more
rational controllers of nukes than you
or I.
Please understand that I have no de-
sire for myself or m v neighbors to own
these sorts of weapons, but this appar-
ent contradiction concerns me.
bd Cassidy
Individuals do have the right to build
o rpu r chase o m n i - directional weapo ns, just
like any other property. However, bran-
dishing those weapons against innocents
is never the right of an individual or of
government. And it is precisely that fact
that which prevents most of us from exer-
cising our right to have such weapons.
Among our rights is the right to gather
of our own free will for the purpose of in-
stituting a government and delegating
( not ceding) to it the authority ( not the right)
to have and use those weapons for our
mutual defense. The men who represent
us in that government's standing army
must be authorized to accept proper del-
egation to use those weapons.
Neither the Commander in Grief nor
the “ zoomies " may be any more rational
than you or I. But they are subject to a
8
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
multitude of checks and balances , which
you and I are not. That obviously makes
'President ' Clinton very unhappy. Which
just goes to show that “ the rule of law and
not of men" is the only condition under
which to trust a government at all.
D. van Oort
Reference the feminization of
America: ever meet men who don’t own
firearms because their wives won’t let
them? Unbelievable — but true! Espe-
cially in New York City. 1 don’t know
whether to laugh, vomit, or shoot those
dumb bastards.
Their idea of manhood is drinking
to excess while debating the relative
merits of steroid using millionaire
sports brats who wouldn’t give them the
time of day to begin with. Just try dis-
cussing the Constitution, rights, or poli-
tics, and their eyes roll back into their
heads. I’m also convinced that most
Establishment “conservatives” don’t
know what the word conserve means.
If they conserve anything, it’s the con-
cept of“government” inflicted upon us
from 1933 to date. They’re actually
afraid ol not being liked by Negroes
and arc absorbed by money and status.
Jefferson said the choice is between
economy (liberty and prosperity), or
tyranny. As long as the mob has cable
TV and SUVs they’re content with tyr-
anny. That’s how I see it in New En-
gland!
Keep your powder dry.
Wayne
Dover Plains, NY
I ’ve just finished Atlas Shrugged. That
book has reopened my mind, re-
established my self-respect and
personal confidence, and helped me re-
new my sense ol liberty. I’ve also read
Thomas Chittum’s Civil War II. I live
in California. 11 he thinks more than a
handful of whites are going to rise-up
to defend themselves (or would even
be capable of self-defense) he should
pay as close attention to our culture of
cowardice as he does to Mexican and
Negro criminal gangs and their politi-
cal allies. I think you’re right. Most
whites, in California at least, will cringe,
surrender with a whimper, with not the
slightest pretense of resistance. They
wouldn’t want to be called “bad names”
by their destroyers!
You are a Special Forces soldier and
I am in the National Guard Immedi-
ate Infantry Reserve (Air Assault). I re-
spect the opinions of professionals and
“older brothers.” My question is, what
to do? Do I stay in the city where the
system can swallow me up and kill me
like a rat? Or should I attempt to move
to a more remote area like the old fash-
ioned survivalists? Urban resistance in
my situation appears to be futile, given
the almost endless “population control”
measures in place, which range from
direct deposit of my paycheck, to being
“nare’ed” by grocery clerks because I
have “too much” cash.
A couple of reserve officers back in
’89 told me to hit the coast if it’s mar-
tial law, or the dissolution of civiliza-
tion. That made sense. The vogue,
yuppies and fruit-loops will head to the
Tahoe range — A1 Gore country. But
what then? The (as you put it) “Alumi-
num Foil Hats” are of no more use than
the guy down the street who appointed
himself “colonel” and has six fat wheez-
ing ‘troops.’ Not much to choose from,
not many places to go. Suggestions?
Gordon Kelly
Carmichael, CA
As I've pointed out on many occasions,
"This is it. "'There are no " third countries"
who would dream of supporting an
American resistance to socialism. There are
no “ base areas" in which to train , plan or
establish a logistic network. There are no
“. safe areas" that can be declared liberated
zo n es to p ro i » ide sa n ctu a ry. What p redo us
little legitimate leadership exists is con-
stantly squabbling amongst themselves
over issues that amount to bar room trivia.
Americans have been dumbed-down ,
feminized , deracinated , demoralized and
made dependent over successive genera-
tions of mind-mangling in government
controlled Dewey Camps. The interna-
tional socialists spent the better part of this
century subverting Am erica from within ,
and surrounding it from without.
This contemporary American resistance
is, so far as l can determine historically , the
first "resist a nee by attrition" in world his-
tory. Unfortunately , were starting four
generations too late. “ What to do?" Why
didn't every armed citizen within 100
miles of Waco descend on Mount Carmel ,
defy "the authorities" en masse and, within
the milling throng, "escort" the Branch
Dividians away and then "disappear"
them (or, if the throng was attacked,
slaughter every uniform in sight) ? Over
220 years ago, if people associating volun-
tarily, who just wanted to be left alone,
had been attacked and laid siege to, "the
authorities" would have found themselves
in the center of a swarm of hornets. But,
then, over 220 years ago, this was a na-
tion of men, not feminized, socialized peas-
ants.
"What to do ?" Heading to the coast , the
mountains — the "countryside "etc. — is a
short term solution to a longterm problem
that simply delays being mopped-up later.
Principled resistance against socialism be-
gins where you stand . It's first expression
is an openly defiant, "No! I'm not doing
that. ”
Steven M. Barry
I am studying political science at
California State University
Northridge. Most of my profes-
sors laugh at me when I mention our
Bill of Rights. They call me a “right wing
extremist,” or a member of the Militia
of Montana. They say I’m “rigid
minded” when I state that the UN was
founded by communists, and China is
a communist country. They tell me I
need to prove such statements, and
when I provide the proof they tell me
the information is “one sided.” So
much for truth in institutions of “higher
learning.”
Joanna
CSU Northridge
NOTICE!
O wing to the length
of Mr. Joseph
Douglas’ “Periodic
Intelligence Report” article,
“Missing American POWs:
What Happened?,” the
regular features in “Periodic
Intelligence Report” and
“The PARTISAN” feature
were canceled. “Periodic
Intelligence Report” and
“The PARTISAN” will
return next issue in their
original formats.
Vol. IV, No. .3
9
The RESISTER
10
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
No mans life , liberty , or property is safe while the
legislature is in session .
Judge Gideon J. Tucker
Editorials
The Highest art in the world cannot guild socialism.
It is impossible to make beautiful the denial of liberty.
Auberon Herbert
mmentaries
The National Race
Inquisition
O ne of the incidental hobbies
I’ve picked up since beginning
The Resister is tracing the his-
tory of the collectivist suborning of the
English language. This often leads me
into unexpected avenues of research,
because in the course of tracing a word
or concept’s destruction, names and
books and so forth inevitably crop up
that lead to further research, etc.. Call it
a process of “advancing into the past”
beginning with current concepts or
word usage and tracing that concept or
word’s usage back to it’s original mean-
ing. In the ideological context of The
Resister I stop “advancing into the past”
around 1750 (give or take 50 years).
The results often give me pause to re-
consider a previously held belief.
When I write I normally listen to
Gregorian chants; but on occasion I’ll
throw in some bluegrass, or Celtic airs
and reels, or martial music from the
Revolution, or popular songs from the
War for Southern Independence era
(there being not much difference be-
tween the last four categories). One day
while making notes for a research
project I was listening to “Homespun
Songs of the C.S.A., Volume 1,” by
Bobby Horton. Track 16 is the song,
“Oh, I’m a Good Old Rebel,” written
by Major Innes Randolph during “re-
construction” and sung to the melody
of an Irish tune called “Joe Bowers.”
(See what I mean?) At the time I had
not previously listened to the record-
ing. So when the lyrics, “I hates the Yan-
kee nation and ever’thing they do, I
hates the Declaration of Independence
too...” [!] penetrated my otherwise oc-
cupied attention I immediately stopped
what I was doing and played that song
over, and over.... And
it got better every
time.
Now, wTien ex-
pressing an idea con-
text is everything. One
of our collectivist
enemy’s favorite tac-
tics is to rip a phrase
or statement out of its
context and start
screaming their swear
words about it, counting on your nega-
tive emotional reaction to the out-of-
context statement to lend credence to
that agitprop tactic. 1 suppose that tac-
tic could be called “anti-context.” It’s a
standard brainwashing technique.
There is a new tactic of mass mind con-
trol being currently tested. Whenever
the collectivist Agenda, particularly the
“multicultural” Agenda, is questioned
in even moderate terms, that is now
called “creating an atmosphere” 1 of
whatever anti-concept you’ve been pre-
viously emotionally conditioned to
avoid. This phrase, “creating an atmo-
sphere,” is a very important develop-
ment. Our enemies, knowing that any
principled opposition to them will be
shouted down by Dewey Camp par-
rots using the self same “teaching toler-
ance” anti-concepts our collectivist
enemies invented, has now advanced
to the stage of mass thought control.
The subtlety of “creating an atmo-
sphere” is such that you are no longer
permitted to even question the collec-
tivists’ Agenda — even to yourself . It is
now forbidden to think. This develop-
ment, folks, is the very essence of pure,
perfect, unqualified evil — and the
planned mass surrender of individual
thought culminating the so-called “civil
rights movement.”
Your first emotional reaction to Ma-
jor Randolph’s invective against the
Declaration of Independence therefore,
given that the Declaration has assumed
— over the years — the status of Holy
Writ, was probably
“Wait a damned
minute!” But I keep
my emotions starved
and chained to a dun-
geon wall in the deep-
est recesses of my
m i n d . My fi rs t thought
when I heard the lyric,
“I hates the Declara-
tion of Independence
too...,” was, “Of course
PuttingThings in Context
T he Declaration of Independence
includes the phrase, “...all men
are created equal....” For a fas-
cinating exercise in observing how the
Ministry ofTruth manipulates histori-
cal texts and thereby alters their mean-
ing, compare the text of the Declaration
of Independence in any reputable work 2
against the text found in The Constitu-
tion of the Unites States, a pocketbook
published by the National Constitution
Center. 1 In reputable texts, that phrase
reads as above. The National Consti-
tution Center’s text reads, “...all Men
are created equal....”
Now, an eighteenth century conven-
tion of emphasizing the meaning of
words was to capitalize the first letter
of that word. Thus the original text’s
“...all men are created equal...” denotes
something different than “...all Men are
created equal. ...’’The government edi-
tor, Martin M. Brasler, couldn’t very well
change the word “men” (I mean, people
would notice), but he could, and did,
change its emphasis using eighteenth
The subtlety of
“creating an atmo-
sphere” is... the very
essence of pure, per-
fect, unqualified
evil...
he did!”
Vol. IV, No. 3
11
The RESISTER
century conventions to imply “man.” In
other words, this government approved
text connotes (in other words, wants you
to feel) that all mankind is created equal;
a blatantly communistic premise delib-
erately intended to make you feel that
any lack of sameness, any inequalities
between people, are somehow “un just”
and therefore non-egalitarian. But the
equality spoken of in the Declaration
had nothing to do with egalitarianism.
The “self-evident” truth “that all men
are created equal; that they are en-
dowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness,” is a political truth, a truth
in individual status before the law, not a.
metaphysical truth. All men are decid-
edly not equal in intelligence, ability,
industriousness or morality. To believe
that they are is brazen self-deception
that willfully defies empirical observa-
tion and objective experience. It is a sell-
deception that can be sustained in the
face of a contradictory reality only by
the surrender of reason to faith. To get
everyone else to believe it (or at least
pretend they do) requires naked force.
This combination of faith and force was
the underlying premise of the Aboli-
tionist movement from its very incep-
tion.
It is crucial to realize historically that
the word “racist” (let alone the anti -con-
cept-like negative emotional response
it’s designed to evoke) did not enter the
English lexicon until around the late
1930s, 4 and it appears to be a contrac-
tion of the word “ racialist, which does
not enter the lexicon until around 1917,
being itself derived from the word “ra-
cialism” 6 which doesn’t appear until
1907. These are important dates.
Those dates most certainly demon-
strate that the Abolitionists weren’t spit-
ting the swearword “racist” at Southern
whites. In fact, racial bigotry was far
more widespread in the North than in
the South. “The aspect of the abolition-
ists’ program that particularly antago-
nized persons in the North... was the
demand that the Blacks, when freed,
remain in the United States... and be
allowed to participate as equals in soci-
ety.” 7 Relations between Negro freemen
in the South and their white neighbors
were largely amicable and equal 8 — in
the strict political and legal construc-
tion of “...all men are created equal....”
Until, that is, Abolitionists began in-
citing slave revolts in 1830.
The Abolitionists’ incitement of
slave revolt, however, was perfectly con-
sistent with French Revolutionary so-
cialist theory and The Terror inspired
by the French revolutionaries’ concep-
tion of Egalit . As transmogrified
through the Abolitionists’ transcenden-
talist Quaker and Unitarian “faith” in a
thoroughly humanized Christ (and thus
deified Abolitionist), revolutionary
metaphysical-egalitarian social theory
“justified” the slaughter of Southern
whites in the name of
Fraternit (universal
brotherhood, ie.
proto-communism).
“What shocked
Southerners was the
realization that men
their own race , in their
own country would
consign them to death
at the hands of another
race.
The South, a sig-
nificant center of anti-
federalist sentiment,
had been since the
Constitution ratification debates dis-
trustful of federalist motives behind the
Constitution, recognizing that the po-
tential for federal excesses was directly
contingent upon the moral character of
elected representatives. So, when Radi-
cal Republican supporters of the Abo-
litionists began taking seats in
Congress, and began abusing and twist-
ing the meaning of “...all men are cre-
ated equal...” from its original meaning
of equality in the individual exercise of
unalienable rights and standing before
the law, to metaphysical-egalitarianism,
Southerners had legitimate cause for
alarm.
When Major Randolph wrote the
lyric, “I hates the Declaration of Inde-
pendence too...,” his seeming blas-
phemy was not against the unalienable
rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness.” Indeed, the preserva-
tion of those unalienable rights was one
of the driving purposes of secession. In
the historical context of reconstruction,
rather, that an altruist-collectivist per-
version of “equal” was deliberately de-
ployed to undermine liberty, destroy
life, and confiscate property (“...the pur-
suit of Happiness”) without just com-
pensation, Major Randolph’s lyric
makes perfect sense. Personally, I’d
have rallied to the Bonnie Blue myself.
Reality Turned Inside-Out
P rior to 1906 the word “race,”
meant “A particular breed.” 10
From 1906, when the meaning
of race was “A permanent variety of
mankind,” 11 through the word’s first ap-
pearance as a doctrine (“racialism” —
1907), and then an advocacy (“racial-
ist” — 1917), the words “racialism” and
“racialist” did not assume negative con-
notations until the mid- 1930s — and
then only “to describe the Nazis. ” 12 The
word “racism” does
not even appear in
most dictionaries un-
til after Roosevelt’s
War, and then forever
thereafter always in a
negative context.
Prior to the mid-
twentieth century the
concept “racist” sim-
ply didn’t exist. “The
earlier understanding
was based on a dis-
tinction between bar-
barism and
civilization.” 1 1 The ob-
jective fact of race was not an “ism.” It
was taken for granted by whites, based
on the empirical evidence of having
conquered and colonized the world,
that whites were the superior race. The
objective fact of race was not an “ist.”
Nobody denied that the races were dif-
ferent, or metaphysically and culturally
unequal. The race “problem” in America
was not the inherent metaphysical in-
equality of the races, rather whether
subordinate races could attain equal sta-
tus with whites through their own ef-
forts, achievements and merits. In
1895, at the Atlanta Exposition fair,
Booker T. Washington delivered a
speech to a standing ovation in which
he stated:
“The wisest among my race under-
stand that the agitation of questions of
social equality is the extremist folly, and
that progress in the enjoyment of all the
privileges that will come to us must be
the result of severe and constant struggle
rather than artificial forcing ” ]A [Empha-
sis added.]
In other words, Washington advo-
cated Negro self-discipline, mutual aid,
industrial education, and self-reliance
as the means by which Negroes would
demonstrate to whites that they mer-
ited equal regard as American citizens:
The Negro must not be deprived by
The “self-evident”
truth “that all men
are created equal...” is
a political truth, a
truth in individual
status before the law,
not a metaphysical
truth.
12
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
unfair means of the franchise, but
political agitation alone will not save him.
Rack of the ballot, he must have property,
industry, skill, economy, intelligence and
character. No race without these
elements can permanently succeed.... We
have a right to enter our complaints, but
we shall make a fatal error if we yield to
the temptation of believing that mere
opposition to our wrongs will take the
place of progressive, constructive
action.... Whether he will or not, a white
man respects a Negro who owns a two-
story brick house . 1 15
Booker T. Washingtons antagonist
was “self-promoting octoroon,” 16
W.E.B. Du Bois. Du Bois was a Euro-
pean educated sociologist, cultural rela-
tivist (ie., no culture is better than
another, just different), and a radical
socialist. While Washington was not
deluded that race differences would dis-
appear altogether, he was realistic
enough to recognize that they could be
meliorated, over time, if Negroes sim-
ply adopted the mores and ethics of the
dominant white culture and behaved
like Anglo-Saxons instead of Africans.
In other words, Booker T. Washington
was advocating a traditional American
solution to his race s problem; “Merit,
no matter under what skin found, is in
the long run recognized and re-
warded.” 1 ' Du Bois, however, collectiv-
ist to the core, branded Washington as
“the original Uncle Torn” 18 and whites
as “oppressors” who must be forced to
raise the Negro up to the white level.
Unfortunately, for both Negroes and
whites, the burgeoning of Marxist “class
consciousness” coincident with the in-
herently collectivist “science” of sociol-
ogy in America during the “Progressive
era” inspired the 1 909 founding by radi-
cal socialists of the National Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Colored
People. The NAACP was organized
largely to provide the socialist (later
Communist Party member) Du Bois a
vehicle by which to proselytize in its
screed, The Crisis , simultaneously cul-
tural relativism among whites and
metaphysical- egalitarianism among
Negroes.
Seizing upon a good opportunity to
disrupt American society (and finding
a whiting fellow traveler in Du Bois),
in 1922 the Communist Party USA
received orders from its Communist
International masters in Moscow “to
exploit Negroes in the Communist
program against the peace and security
of the United States.” 19 Beginning in
1923, NAACP began receiving grants
through the Garland Fund, which was
a central point of financing for CPUSA
front organizations. 20 CPUSA also
urged its members and fellow travelers
to become active and agitate within the
NAACP, and detailed certain of its
Negro members to assume adminis-
trative and leadership positions within
the organization. By 1940, the NAACP
was, for practical purposes, a Commu-
nist front organization.
From its inception to the present,
no matter the protestations of...
NAACP apologises], the organization’s
officials and its known members,
collectively and individually, have
represented the influential left, the
leadership of Communist fronts and left-
wing political and pacifist groups, and
the most effective of the anti-anti-
Communist establishment . 21
The NAACP s close ties with Com-
munist fronts was evi-
dent in its early
advocacy of a separate
Negro nation within
the United States en-
compassing the so-
called “black belt;”
South Carolina, Geor-
gia, Alabama, Missis-
sippi, and Louisiana.
This was a theme that
Du Bois, a self-de-
scribed racialist and
segregationist, never
abandoned. Particu-
larly after his first trip
to the Soviet Union in
1926. A separate Ne-
gro nation, however,
proved an embarrass-
ment to the NAACP
which relied heavily
upon funding from leftist and “stylishly
pink” whites, and held little interest for
the majority of the Negro population.
Du Bois left in 1934 and the NAACP
changed its program from Negro na-
tionalism to one of full integration.
Significantly, the NAACP retained
the Du Bois notion of cultural relativ-
ism. But perhaps the most significant
development during the late 1930s and
into the 1940s, given its affiliations with
Communist front organizations and
administrative control by Communists
within the Association, was borrowing
a page out of the Anti-Defamation
League’s blackmail handbook. Recall
that the word “racist” did not enter the
lexicon until the late 1930s, and then
almost always in reference only to Na-
zis. The Communist tactic at the time
was to smear anti-Communists as
“Hitlerites,” advocates of neutrality as
“isolationists,” patriotic American na-
tionalists as “fascists,” and anybody who
pointed out that 50% of the CPUSA
were J[ews 22 (as well as the controlling
leadership of most of its front organi-
zations) 21 was smeared as — you
guessed it — an “anti-Semite;” the ob-
vious connotation being “racist.”
The fact that anti-Communists
weren’t “Hitlerites,” advocates of neu-
trality weren’t “isolationists,” patriotic
American nationalists weren’t “fascists,”
and those who were pointing out who
was leading the Communists weren’t
“anti-Semites,” meant nothing. Objec-
tions to those smears only brought on
louder screaming and more vicious
defamation . I ^ets call it the agitprop tech-
nique of “The accusa-
tion is the crime.” If
you fall for it, you
spend more time de-
fending yourself
against the personal
smear than getting
your point across.
Which is the whole
point of that agitprop
technique. If you don’t
fall for it and dare to
persist you are sav-
aged in the ‘liberal’
media until your advo-
cates begin to straggle
(and eventually fallout)
out of fear of not be-
ing “liked.” You’re
then isolated as an “ex-
tremist” and forever
thereafter publicly
marginalized.
The leadership of the NAACP rec-
ognized a neat agitprop technique when
they saw one. Given the irrational ab-
surdity of cultural relativism itself, let
alone when combined with demands for
unqualified integration (perhaps best
summed up as, “I demand I’m different
therefore I demand to be treated as your
equal”), rational individuals who
pointed out that obvious contradiction
were smeared as “racist.” Which, of
course, given that word’s origin, carried
the ugly connotation “Nazi.” Thus was
rational, principled opposition to meta-
And thus was the
objective knowledge
that the various races
are not metaphysi-
cally equal, the em-
pirical (i.e.,
non-relativist) evi-
dence that Anglo-
Saxon culture is
superior to Negro
culture, turned in-
side-out.
Vol. IV, No. 3
13
The RESISTER
physical-egalitarianism and cultural
relativism hijacked by collectivist name
calling. And thus was the objective
knowledge that the various races are
not metaphysically equal, the empirical
(i.e., non-relativist) evidence that
Anglo-Saxon culture is superior to
Negro culture, turned inside-out.
The New Reconstruction
L eftist postrevisionist “histori-
ans” actually brag that the so-
called “civil rights” movement
was the start of a “Second Reconstruc-
tion” to “fix” what the first reconstruc-
tion failed to accomplish. “Shocked by
the resistance to racial progress in the
1960s and the deep seated economic
problems the Second Reconstruction
failed to solve, influential historians
portrayed change in the post-Civil War
years as fundamentally ‘superficial.’” 24
Forget the horrors of the First Recon-
struction; a decade of martial law, eco-
nomic devastation, “land reform” (i.e.,
confiscation and redistribution of prop-
erty), “diabolical” Negro misgovern-
ment “to be remembered, shuddered
at, and execrated,” 25 and the destruc-
tion of the Constitution by the Radical
Republicans evil legacy, the Civil Rights
Act of 1866 and its spawn, the 14th
amendment. These were merely “su-
perficial” improvements to “racial
progress.”
The Second Reconstruction was
waged by “activist” federal courts un-
dermining incrementally the unalien-
able rights of life, liberty and property.
The “activist” courts were backed up
by the Nine Robbed Dictators (and,
where resistance surfaced, federal bayo-
nets). The targets of the Second Recon-
struction were freedom of association
and property rights. These were natu-
ral targets given the so-called “civil
rights” movement’s Communist lead-
ership and collectivist agenda. In 1948,
the Supreme Court “outlawed racial
discrimination in the private sale of
homes, striking down restrictive cov-
enants that excluded blacks and other
groups from purchasing certain prop-
erties.” 26 This decision passed quietly,
almost unnoticed; but it had devastat-
ing long term consequences. The very
heart of the principle of private prop-
erty ownership — the private home —
was rendered a nullity by forbidding
individual discrimination (freedom of
association) in its acquisition and dis-
posal. It was a small step to render a
nullity the use of and access to private
business property. But first, the last ves-
tiges of state sovereignty had to be neu-
tralized.
“Free” compulsory education, and
the establishment of “public” school
systems is a remnant of the First Re-
construction. 27 “Pub-
lic” school, of course,
means government
school. The problem
facing the new
reconstructionists was
that “public” schools
were state controlled,
not federally con-
trolled. If state run
“public” schools could
be compelled to inte-
grate, “public” educa-
tion would become a
federal “responsibil-
ity” overseen by the
very federal courts that compelled their
integration. That would be bad enough.
There was, however, a deeper agenda.
To obtain Supreme Court recognition,
in a landmark case, of that collectivist
execration and NAACP dogma, cul-
tural relativism.
Brown v. Board of Education was the
vehicle. This was a frontal attack on seg-
regation, using prior precedents that
states could be compelled to “improve”
segregated schools to make them
“equal.” While the case was moving
through the courts, the NAACP se-
cured the testimony of anthropologists,
sociologists, and “educators” to the ef-
fect that segregation was harmful to
Negroes. In every single instance, these
“intellectuals” were decidedly leftists,
advocates of cultural relativism, and in
two cases (Isidor Chein and Otto
Klineberg) students of Franz Boas,
German philosopher of relativism and
teacher of — wait for it — W.E.B. Du
Bois.
The Triumph of Barbarism
T he premise of relativism is that
social environment determines
the content of beliefs about
what is and ought to be, both of which
fluctuate randomly because of the di-
versity of environments. A relativist of
values maintains there are no standards
of good or bad, right or wrong; that
there are no universal ethical standards,
and that “the ethical standards of one
culture cannot be judged by the ethical
standards of another culture.” 28 A rela-
tivist of fact maintains there is no ob-
jective knowledge of reality, i.e., no
truth, independent of the “knower.”
Cultural relativism is the belief that
there are “no objective standards by
which to evaluate a culture, that a cul-
ture cannot be understood except from
the point of view of its
own values and cus-
toms. ” 2y These are the
obscene premises you
are today asked to
swallow when our De-
stroyers demand “tol-
erance” while waxing
ecstatic about “diver-
sity.” And these are the
obscene argumenta-
tive premises the War-
ren court considered
when it heard
NAACP lawyer
Thurgood Marshall
argue Brown v. Board of Education. Plus
some calculated lies.
In 1962, Dr. Alfred H. Kelly, an his-
torian who served as Marshalls aid dur-
ing preparation of the Brown brief,
revealed that Marshall set out to de-
ceive the Court with spurious histori-
cal arguments. “In an address to the
American Historical Association, Dr.
Kelly told how he was asked by Marshall
‘to prepare a research paper on the in-
tent of the framers of the Fourteenth
Amendment with respect to the con-
stitutionality of racially segregated
schools.’” 40 He told the audience that
the Civil Rights Act of 1866 “was spe-
cifically rewritten to avoid... State ra-
cial-segregation laws, including school
segregation....” 41 This didn’t deter
Marshall. He recalled Dr. Kelly, and to-
gether with Robert Ming Jr., a former
Harvard law professor, they drafted
Marshall’s Brown brief. “It is not that
we were engaged in formulating lies....
But we were using facts, quietly ignor-
ing facts and, above all, interpreting facts
in a way to do what Marshall said we had
to do — ‘get by those boys down
there.’” 42 [Emphases added.]
While Marshall was the NAACP’s
chief attorney he was also on the na-
tional committee of the International
Juridical Association, which actively de-
fended Communists, and he was on the
executive board of the National Law-
yers Guild, at the time the legal bul-
wark of the Communist Party USA. In
1967, when appointed to the Court by
Lyndon Johnson, he admitted that he
The Second Re-
construction was
waged by “activist”
federal courts under-
mining incremen-
tally the unalienable
rights of life, liberty
and property.
14
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
viewed the Supreme Court as a social
reform group. 33
In sum, Brown v. Board of Education,
the landmark Supreme Court case that
initiated integration, was based on
amicus briefs by Marxist cultural rela-
tivists written in support of a collectiv-
ist organization that espoused
simultaneously cultural relativism and
metaphysical-egalitarianism. It was ar-
gued by a Marxist lawyer who was an
active and whiting member of (at least
two) known Communist front organi-
zations and who considered the Su-
preme Court as a social reform group,
using a brief that was blatant piece of
historical fiction. The majority opinion
that agreed with Marshalls package of
relativist fiction was written by Com-
munist sympathizer Chief Justice Earl
Warren, who had virtually no legal ex-
perience ( none as a judge), and who con-
sistently based his decisions, not upon
law, but upon radical leftist social, eco-
nomic and political theories. 34
Brown v. Board of Education, an ab-
ject surrender to collectivism, set the
stage for the abrogation of individual
rights. It was an easy usurpation. Since
the late 1800s, states and federal gov-
ernment had been requiring ever in-
creasing numbers of private individuals
and businesses to obtain licenses in or-
der to exercise their rational faculties
in entrepreneurial or business enter-
prise. Remember, a “license” is govern-
ment “permission to do a particular
thing, to exercise a certain privilege or
carry on a particular business or to pur-
sue a certain occupation. ” 35 In other
words, government permission to live .
With the passage of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, following nearly a decade
of Negro Communist coordinated
“nonviolent” violations of freedom of
association and property use, the exer-
cise of the unalienable rights of free-
dom of association and property
became illegal.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ex-
tended federal control over every citi-
zen, business, corporation, and
association extorted by tax agencies by
extending the interstate commerce
clause to find that their every act was a
“state action.” It extended federal con-
trol to every act of every corporation
under the theory that states “license and
protect” all corporations. It federalized
all “public” schools, and control over all
elections without adjudication or hear-
ing. It created the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (in addition
to the existing Civil Rights Commis-
sion) that could levy fines, penalties and
administrative action without judicial
process on private business; or if pro-
cess was permitted , without trial by jury.
The “Civil Rights” Act of 1 964, in other
words, transformed every individual,
business, or financial activity in
America into an institution for social
and political reform to prevent “dis-
crimination” — which means, it made
individual value judgments, individual
associations, individual property rights,
a federal crime. 36 This
“act” was the single
greatest violation of in-
dividual and property
rights in American his-
tory.
Quick on its heels
followed the Voting
Rights Act of 1965. This
eliminated literacy tests
as a franchise qualifica-
tion, thus permitting
those who were igno-
rant of or hostile to our
form of government the vote. It uncon-
stitutionally extended “federal scrutiny”
over local and state elections, placed state
election machinery under Justice De-
partment “observation,” and appointed
federal “examiners” to “monitor” local
and state elections. This execration
eventually led to Voting Rights Act of
1982, the “one-man one-vote” gerry-
mandering of “majority minority” (i.e.,
Negro and Mexican) voting districts.
In other words, the tribalization of the
franchise.
Don’t forget the “War on Poverty,” a
Pandora’s box of welfare handouts, so-
cialized medicine, and “grants” (read
bribes) to Negro revolutionaries, ex-
tortionists and con artists (called “com-
munity leaders”) to buy-off the rioting
that always followed in the wake of
Martin Luther King Jr.’s “nonviolent”
marches through American cities. Of
course, once they had the bribes they
rioted anyway. This was called “rage.”
It was, and still is, forbidden to refer to
Negro rioting and insurrection as an-
archy. People might get the wrong idea.
The 1967 National Advisory Com-
mission on Civil Disorders (the Kerner
Commission) was convened by Presi-
dent Johnson to “explore the causes” of
uncivilized Negro behavior. Convened
by Executive Order 11365, Johnson
charged the Commission, “Let your
search be free... As best you can, find
the truth and express it in your re-
port.” 37 On cue, and as scripted, the
Commission found the “truth.” Anar-
chic behavior by Negroes was caused
by “the inability of American society,
dominantly white, to see and treat its
Negro citizens fairly.” 38 What was the
solution? “[A] policy which combines
ghetto enrichment with programs de-
signed to encourage integration of sub-
stantial numbers of Negroes into
society outside the ghetto.” 39
In other words, squander thousands
of millions to “enrich” a
Negro created environ-
ment, then export Ne-
gro anarchy into the
white suburbs. White
resistance to being ex-
torted for ghetto “en-
richment,” and having
anarchy imported into
their neighborhoods,
and their children ex-
ported to the ghetto,
was called “racist.” Af-
ter all, who were whites
to judge Negro culture, or object to hav-
ing it inflicted upon them?
Cultural Relativism
Come Home to Roost
F ifty years of activist judicial dic-
tatorship, federal civil “rights”
legislation, federally encouraged
migrations of Southern hemisphere
barbarians, and the cultural relativist
“tolerance” mind mangling of white
children in federal Dewey Camps, pre-
pared the ground for our nomenklatura
to finally declare — with ecstatic antici-
pation — that in fifty years whites will
be a minority in America. ‘President’
Clinton’s Advisory Board on Race, the
female chaired and decidedly non-white
Inquisition overseeing the so-called
“national dialogue on race,” was con-
vened to ensure a smooth transition for
our (“our” meaning white) barbarian
usurpers. Given the nihilistic cultural
relativism underpinning
“multiculturalism,” and “tolerance” for
“diversity,” it’s clear that the National
Race Inquisition, based on their “find-
ings” over the past year, will reach, at
the end of their “dialogue,” a foregone
conclusion. A conclusion you’ll be for-
bidden to dispute or even question
when it’s formally announced. The con-
clusion will be that the failure of bar-
barians to achieve “social justice” and
It was, and still is,
forbidden to refer
to Negro rioting
and insurrection as
anarchy. People
might get the
wrong idea.
Vol. IV, No. 3
15
The RESISTER
“economic justice” in America, is due
to “white racism” — not their biologi-
cal status as evolutionary losers.
All men are not created equal. What
Jefferson held as a self evident truth is
that all men in a republic are created
equal in standing before the law. The
various races do differ; metaphysically,
epistemologically, psychologically and
physically. W hites are the superior race,
and Western civilization is clearly su-
perior to all other cultures. Denying
these facts is an irrational denial of an
observable, objective reality. Egalitar-
ian-collectivist propaganda that “race is
a social construct” and cultural relativ-
ist notions that “all cultures have equal
value” are such abominable lies, are so
malignantly deceitful, that only one con-
clusion can be drawn about the motives
behind them — the nihilistic sacrifice
of America to inferior races and infe-
rior cultures. America’s dictated from
the top and agitated from the bottom
“celebration of diversity” is explicitly
intended to deracinate whites, demol-
ish Western civilization, and reduce
America to the level of Mexico or Af-
rica.
Left to their own intelligence and
value judgments (rational or irrational,
objective or subjective) individuals will
associate with and discriminate among
whomever they chose. This exercise of
individual liberty is, of course, intoler-
able to collectivists and egalitarians.
Civil Rights Commission zampolit and
National Ad Council propagandists
threaten us, “Discrimination is illegal!”
Translating Newspeak into plain En-
glish that means, “Individual value judg-
ments are a federal crime.”
Maybe it’s time to rethink segrega-
tion (I like to use the word “Apartheid”
because it gives ‘liberals’ apoplexy).
Between integration 40 and segregation,
the latter is clearly the most benign
policy for the simple reason that the
races would (and always have), without
government interference, self-segre-
gated. Yet even so, amicable relations
between individuals of segregated races
are still possible because any such rela-
tions, such as they may occur, are by
definition voluntary. Integration, how-
ever, necessarily strains, and historically
has always ultimately destroyed, ami-
cable relations between the races — as
America’s integrationist destroyers well
know and their nihilistic activism has
always intended. For, just as govern-
ment interference in favor of segrega-
tion merely acknowledges a situation
that would, in greater or lesser degrees,
occur without government interference,
so does integration maliciously reflect
a policy that must be compelled because
it is, on the whole, unnatural and there-
fore may be impelled only through gov-
ernment interference by the only means
at its disposal — naked force. The opti-
mal solution, of course, is for govern-
ment to simply leave everybody alone
and tend to its only legitimate business;
defending the nation
and protecting the in-
dividual rights of all
men equally. But, real-
istically, that’s not go-
ing to happen.
Is there anything
morally or ethically
wrong with Separate
But Equal? Of course
not. Under a policy of
Separate But Equal
nobody’s natural
rights are violated. A
natural right is that
which incurs no obli-
gation to any other in-
dividual other than to
not interfere in any-
body else’s exercise of
that identical right. For
example; over the bath-
room in my home hangs an antique (still
in the original frame) Department of
the Army Form # 11734. It reads:
SHOWERS (and centered beneath
that): White Officers (arrow pointing
to the left); Colored Officers (arrow
pointing to the right). Now, what indi-
vidual natural right was abrogated by
that sign or the policy it represented?
The answer, of course, is, none . lust as
there were no natural rights abrogated
by segregated lunch counters, bus seat-
ing, housing, schools, or — dare I say
it? — military units.
The so-called “civil rights” move-
ment, given that it was inspired from
its inception by Communist agitators
and sympathizers, not only everted the
common law meaning of civil rights
from “those rights appertaining the ac-
quisition, use and disposal of property,”
to the communistic, “Human Rights
Over Property Rights!” It also assured
that the plaintive whine of conscious
evil — “Can’t we all get along?” — has
only one possible answer; “No!”
Given ‘President’ Clinton’s nihilis-
tic “national dialogue on race,” which
has all the trappings of an Inquisition,
and the fact that whites at Inquisition
hearings who simply state, “There’s no
one up there talking about white’s!” are
called “fools” by former cabinet mem-
bers and forcibly removed from the
audience by police, while native savages
who scream, whoop, beat drums, and
demand representation are not only left
unmolested, but are consoled with “The
issues are deeply felt,” by Inquisitor
Judith Winston, should leave no doubt
as to the true purpose
of integrationists or
the real goal of the
Race Inquisition. That
purpose is the
criminalization of
whites for creating the
most free and pros-
perous nation in his-
tory, and the goal is
the sacrifice of
America to Colored
looters.
Does the foregoing
mean I’m a “racist?” If
you mean do I judge
the worth of individu-
als solely on the basis
of their genes (the
context always used in
The Resister) — no,
I’m not. Because I al-
ways have, and always will, judge and
associate with men as individuals ac-
cording to their individual merits and
their demonstrated individual behav-
ior, not their inherited gene pool. This
is called “freedom of association.”
Ifyou mean the word in its substan-
tive form of the word racialism: “Belief
in the superiority of a particular race
leading to prejudice and antagonism to-
wards people of other races, esp. those
in close proximity who may be felt as a
threat to one’s cultural and racial integ-
rity or economic welfare” 41 — yes, I do
think whites, on the whole, are supe-
rior, because their historical scientific,
economic, cultural and martial accom-
plishments cannot be matched by any
combination of other races on the face
of the planet.
Am I prejudiced and antagonistic
“towards people of other races” who
have as their stated goal the destruc-
tion of Western culture, the
deracination of whites, and the collec-
tivization of private property and busi-
ness? You bet I am!
Steven M. Barry
Civil Rights Com-
mission zampolit and
National Ad Council
propagandists
threaten us, “Dis-
crimination is ille-
gal!” Translating
Newspeak into plain
English that means,
“Individual value
judgments are a fed-
eral crime.”
16
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
NOTES:
“My problem is that I never saw
this as a First Amendment issue. I saw [the
KKK] as a terrorist organization attempt-
ing to use the airwaves to create an atmo-
sphere where terror could thrive. I felt that
they were trying to plant the seeds of racial
intolerance....” [Emphases added.] Ellen
Alderman and Caroline Kennedy, In Our
Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action, (Avon
Books, New York, 1991) Page 27 - 28. The
quote is from Reverend Emanuel Cleaver
(they’re always “reverend,” aren’t they? I
mean, who questions the motives of a “rev-
erend?”), who was a member of the Kansas
City ACLU (“Communism is the goal [of
the ACLU],” Roger N. Baldwin, Director,
ACLU, 1920 - 1967), and a national vice-
president of Reverend Martin Luther King,
Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Con-
ference (the controlling administrative staff
of which were members of the Communist
Party USA). Alderman and Kennedy are
“fashionably pink” sympathizers of Com-
munists called to testify before the House
Un-American Activities Committee, who
they describe as “innocent persons who find
themselves in incriminating circumstances,
such as those called ‘Fifth Amendment
Communists’ by Senator Joseph
McCarthy.” The meaning behind the title
of their book, In Our Defense , is, I think,
rather obvious.
2 Bernard Bailvn, The Debate on the
Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist
Speeches , Articles , and Letters During the
Struggle over Ratification , Part I (Literary
Classics of the United States, Inc., New
York, 1993.)
National Constitution Center,
The Bourse Building, Suite 560, 111 S.
Independence Mall E., Philadelphia, PA
19106.
4 Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,
5th Edition, 1937. [I do not claim to have a
comprehensive library of dictionaries. My
collection does, however, span the defining
periods of American history; pre War for
Southern Independence, the “progressive”
era, the “New Deal” era, the “Great Soci-
ety” era, and the Oxford English Dictio-
nary, 2nd. Edition. This permits at least
points of departure from which to trace the
Ministry of Truth’s manipulation of the
meaning of words and concepts — and
therefore how language is used, and
thoughts are controlled.]
s OED, 2, XIII.
6 ibid.
Merton L. Dillon, The Abolition-
ists: The Growth of a Dissenting Minority.
(Northern Illinois University Press, 1979).
Page 66.
See: James R. and Walter D.
Kennedy, The South Was Right!, (Pelican
Publishing Company, Gretna, 1996), for a
general treatment.
Otto J. Scott, The Secret Six: John
Brown and the Abolitionist Movement,
(Times Books, New York, 1979). Page 87.
10 Noah Webster, An American Dic-
tionary of the English Language, 1832.
The New American Encyclopedic
Dictionary, Volume IV, 1906.
12 Dinesh D’Sousa, The Endof Rac-
ism, (The Free Press, New York, 1995). Page
117. See also: John R. Baker, Race, (Oxford
LIniversity Press, New York, 1974). Page 61.
“...for it marks the close of the period in
which both sides in the ethnic controversy
were free to put forward their views, and
authors who wished to do so could give ob-
jective accounts of the evidence pointing in
each direction. From the beginning of the
thirties onwards scarcely anyone outside
Germany and its allies dared to suggest that
any race might be in any respect or in any
sense superior to any other, lest it should
appear that the author was supporting or
excusing the Nazi cause. Those who believed
in the equality of all races were free to write
what they liked, without fear or contradic-
tion.”
13 Loc. cit.
14 Ibid, page 185.
1 s Loc. cit.
Elizabeth Wright, editor of Issues
and Views, a newsletter that promotes self-
help, quoted in D’Souza, page 184.
17 Ibid, page 187.
1 * D’Souza, page 1 85 .
Francis X. Gannon, Biographi-
cal Dictionary of the Left, Vol. I (Western
Islands, Boston, 1969). Page 142
20 Ibid, page 42.
21 Ibid, Page 144 -145.
22 Encyclopaedia Judaica, (Keter
Publishing House Ltd., Jerusalem, 1971).
Volume XVIII, page 823.
23 Loc. cit.
Eric Foner, Reconstruction:
America's Unfinished Revolution 1S63 -
1877, (Harper & Row, New York, 1988).
Page xxii. Foner, a Red, is of that school
that believes “Revising interpretations of the
past” in light of “changing definitions of
history” [!] is the historians duty, especially
if the past doesn’t conform to current ideol-
ogy. (xix.)
E. Merton Coulter, The South
During Reconstruction , (Baton Rouge,
1947).
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1
( 1 948), in D’Souza, page 191.
Foner, page xxii.
28 OED, 2nd Edition, XIII.
29 Loc. cit.
30 Gannon, 148.
31 Ibid, page 149.
Ibid, page 150.
Ibid, page 150.
34 Ibid, page 571 - 575.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edi-
tion.
36 John C. Satterfield, Unlimited
Federal Control of Individuals, Businesses and
the States, (Co-ordinating Committee for
Fundamental American Freedoms, Wash-
ington, circa 1963.) Page 2.
Report of the National Advisory
Commission on Civil Disorders, The New
York Times Edition, (E.P Dutton & Co.
Inc., New York, 1968). Page xvi.
Ibid, page vii.
Ibid, page viii.
The distinction between deseg-
regation and integration begs definition in
this context. Desegregate means, “To re-
unite (persons, classes, races, etc.) hitherto
segregated; esp. (orig. U.S.) to abolish seg-
regation in schools and other institutions,”
while desegregation means, “such reunion
or abolition.” [OED, 2nd ed., IV.] Inte-
grate means, “To bring (racially or cultur-
ally differentiated peoples) into equal
membership of a society or system...,”
[OED, 2nd ed., VII, l.b.], while integra-
tion means, “The bringing into equal mem-
bership of a common society those groups
or persons previously discriminated against
on racial or cultural grounds.” [OED, 2nd
ed., VII, 1 .c..] Now, one of the Left ’s most
insidious propaganda techniques to mangle
and misuse language. In this instance “de-
segregate” infers a return to a condition that
never existed', i.e., that “persons, classes, races,
etc.,” must be reunited , when in fact the
“persons, classes, races, etc.” referred to (i.e.
Negroes), were never united with white
Americans to begin with. The connotation
of “desegregation” is that at one time we all
lived in blissful harmony ( Reconstruction),
then something bad happened that resulted
in segregation (Jim Crow), and now it’s time
to return to our former blissful state (New
Reconstruction). Never mind that Recon-
struction was a military dictatorship, that
Jim Crow returned harmony to society, and
the Second Reconstruction is expressly
stated by its proponents (‘President’ Clinton
among them) to deracinate white Ameri-
cans. If you notice, and object, you’re a “rac-
ist.” Desegregation therefore, along with it’s
“non-compulsory” implications, is a coldly
calculated lie. The word “integration,” how-
ever, openly denotes compulsion as its means
of execution. But, given the irrational fear
whites have of being called names by their
destroyers, and having first swallowed the
premise of “desegregation,” the
nomenklatura does not expect that whites
will cut such fine distinctions, or offer much
resistance against the logical consequences
of their blithering ignorance of their own
language, or their gullible egalitarian faith
that “all Men are created equal.” in every
metaphysical and epistemological sense ex-
cept (in the case of whites) before the law.
41 OED, 2nd, ed., XIII.
Vol. IV, No. 3
17
The RESISTER
AMERICA’S DEATH
BY 1,000 CUTS
ty
Dr. Susan L.M. Huck
In a probably unrelated develop-
ment, the erection of an overweening
European Union bureaucracy has some
strange results. We had read before
about the nest of bureaucrats “empow-
ered” to set detailed, uniform pan-Eu-
ropean standards for raspberry jam and
such. Well, the bureaucrats also feel
“empowered” to dictate to the Vatican
the precise standards for communion
wafers.
Do They Take Us
For Schmucks? Yes!
Get the Money!
T he assault against Switzerland
was baldly described on the
World Jewish Congress
website. “The WJC and the Jewish
Agency threatened the Swiss banking
community with a series of measures,
including boycotts, disinvestment cam-
paigns, and class action suits in answer
to a statement by the former Swiss
president which Jewish leaders said
verged on antisemitism.”
Responding the Jewish demands for
what the WJC itself described as “a
S250 million compensation fund for
Jews who might he entitled to money
left in Swiss banks,” the former presi-
dent of Switzerland said “This is noth-
ing less than extortion and blackmail.”
Of course it’s extortion and black-
mail. But if it’s Jewish extortion and
blackmail, you will be called antisemitic
for saying so. The WJC announced that
the Swiss had one month in which to
issue an official retraction of the extor-
tion-and-blackmail statement. Other-
wise, they “would consider measures
which had been advocated by WJC or-
ganizations and individuals.”
That the Jews could also call upon
non -Jewish groups to pile on was ex-
plained in some detail. “In the past, the
Swiss had acted as a result of economic
pressure. The present negotiations had
come about as a result of action by WJC
president Edgar Bronfman. There were
other key economic figures who would
also be called upon. 'We know who they
are,’ said WJC Secretary-General Is-
rael Singer.”
On the same website we find fur-
ther evidence of global campaign to
“Get the Money!”
“European and other countries are
confronting newly-emerging memories
and guilt-filled ghosts from the past. “ Fol-
lowing the unprecedented media campaign ,
[and] pressure from Jewish organizations ,
more than twenty commissions were es-
tablished to investigate their fellow
countrymens behavior during [ World War
II]. . . Many national myths. . .have come into
question.” [Emphases added.] Sheer
propaganda! Do they take people for
schmucks? Yes!
Besides Switzerland, planted guilt-
trips have been laid on Austrians, the
Dutch, and the
Swedes. The Swedes
were “guilty” of selling
iron ore to Germany!
The purpose is, as al-
ways, to soften up the
victims so that they will
grovel and consent to
the looting.
A person credited
by the World Jewish
Congress for pointing
the finger at potential
sources of money is
Sidney Zabludoff. He “has worked for
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Fi-
nancial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCen), and the White House.” We
can probably assume that he was paid
by the American government, but it is
clear who he was working for.
The Vatican Grovel
F ifty years ago is nothing. What
about five hundred years ago, a
thousand, maybe more? There
is a constant demand for the Vatican to
grovel officially on the subject of
“antisemitism. ’’The latest mea culpaw&s
still not good enough. Every comma
and apostrophe was examined for evi-
dence of some attempt to weasel out of
the grovel. It’s amazing, the way this
hostility always seems to erupt against
the pure and innocent Jewish people,
wherever they go.
And Here at Home...
H ere’s a late March news flash.
“In the first case of its kind to
reach trial, a federal jury
cleared a gun manufacturer of any li-
ability in the slaying of a Hasidic [Jew-
ish] student with one of its weapons on
the Brooklyn Bridge.” A Lebanese shot
some Jewish students in retaliation for
the shooting of 29 Moslems in Israel.
But the shooter doesn’t have ten mil-
lion dollars, so sue the gun manufac-
turer. No dice. It isn’t often that a New
York jury shows good
sense.
A New York court
has declared the gov-
ernment of Iran re-
sponsible for the death
of an American Jew in
Israel, awarding the
family more than a
quarter billion dollars ,
presumably to be ex-
tracted from any Ira-
nian assets carelessly
left in the U.S.
Not long ago, an Israeli mother lob-
bied the U.S. Congress to cut off money
to force the Palestinians to hand over
suspects to Israel. It is also proposed
that the United States monitor who’s
locked up in the Middle East, and
whether they stay locked up. There is
really no end to it, once you put on the
globocop uniform.
So Hang Him
for Something Else!
H ard to believe, but they’re still
after John Demjanjuk.
Demjanjuk is a retired auto
worker who was put through about sev-
enteen years of hell by an arm of the
Department of Justice and the Israeli
government. The Office of Special In-
vestigations (OSI) was created for the
sole purpose of hunting down and de-
stroying people fingered by Jewish
Of course it’s extor-
tion and blackmail.
But if it’s Jewish ex-
tortion and black-
mail, you will be
called antisemitic for
saying so.
18
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
groups. The despicable Soviet agent,
Armand Hammer, in conjunction with
the KGB and OSI, framed Demjanjuk
as camp guard dubbed “Ivan the Ter-
rible” during World War II.
A Jewish-authored book, Treblinka,
described the killing of Ivan the Ter-
rible. When this was mentioned at
Demjanjuk s show- trial, the matter was
dismissed with an offhand “we lied —
just to make people feel good, you
know.”
Demjanjuk was not Ivan the Ter-
rible, but that did not spare him from
being stripped of American citizenship,
sent to Israel for a show trial, and then
spending seven years in solitary, wait-
ing to be hanged. Eventually the Israe-
lis admitted that he wasn’t Ivan the
Terrible.
That wasn’t good enough for Ameri-
can Jews and the Justice Department,
however. The basic cry is, “Well, hang
him for something else!” He and his
family have been ceaselessly harassed
by Jewish groups. Hey, maybe he was a
teen-age gate guard. Whatever.
The only good news is that an Ohio
court was so revolted by this whole
thing that Demjanjuk has had his
American citizenship restored.
Endless Vindictiveness:
Part II
T he unconscionably flabby Ger-
man government “is
contibuting $1 10 million to the
Wiesenthal Center and adding 15 to
20 staff members for two years to a
special Nazi-hunting prosecutor’s of-
fice.” The “Nazis” in question are dis-
abled war veterans.
“Germany is going over lists of
996,000 people who receive pensions,
including 33,000 who live outside Ger-
many, and comparing them with the
Wiesenthal Center’s list of suspects.”
A “suspect” is anybody on the Jew-
ish shit-list or their dependents. (“The
law also applies to family members.”)
It’s a wide net; in January 1997 there
was foamed-up hysteria in Australian
newspapers about “possible Nazi war
criminals” getting their pensions!
After more than half a century of
“Nazi-hunting,” they just want a finer-
toothed cornb! Who needs evidence\
Jewish suspicion will do. Such fun, kick-
ing the crutches from under an aged
veteran amputee — or his widow, in
case the veteran himself has already es-
caped the Endless Vindictiveness Pro-
gram. And making the German
schmucks pay for it themselves...!
Shimon Samuels, speaking for the
Simon Wiesenthal Center, was irate
that nine out of eleven foreign govern-
ments being harassed to “cross-refer-
ence their records with lists of German
pension recipients” are not “cooperat-
ing.” Only the United States (of course!)
and Britain (so far) have fallen into line.
Give Us Pollard
as a Birthday Present
J W onathan Pollard was apparently an
I extraordinarily productive spy for
I Israel. Whatever he was doing hurt
s so badly that an otherwise compli-
ant U.S. government still keeps him
locked up. The latest push is to induce
President Clinton to send Pollard to Is-
rael as a 50th birthday present to that
country. Two Israeli cabinet ministers
visited Pollard, early this year, at the
federal prison in Butner, North Caro-
lina.
Columnist Robert Novak (2-19-98)
noted the comment of William
Ginsburg. Monica Lewinsky’s lawyer:
“Clinton is very positive toward Israel
and the Jews and Monica and I are
Jews. I don’t want the
president to resign.
Who knows who will
come after Clinton and
what his attitude to Is-
rael will be?”
A Jewish concern
about the Pollard case,
as expressed on the
Jewish Congress
website and elsewhere,
has been fear that the “dual loyalty” —
if that — of too many American Jews
will become ever more obvious. Sup-
pose people begin to notice that loyalty
to Israel is keen, while loyalty to
America is conditional on American
service to Israel?
Meanwhile;
Back on the
Kolkhoz...
The Great Equalizer
P resident Clinton’s latest egalitar-
ian gambit is to earmark a mere
$400,000,000 tax dollars to
make health and lifespans equal. In
whatever category “blacks and other
minorities” fail to shine, federal dollars
will be showered upon con -artists of-
fering an alleged cure for inequality.
Be certain that both “lifestyles” and
heredity will be out of bounds. Inhab-
itants of the Pine Ridge Reservation in
South Dakota have a horrible health
record, because they have nothing bet-
ter to do than drink. Gays die young
because they wreck their immune sys-
tems. Blacks have a high rate of infant
mortality because so many children are
born to mothers who haven’t a clue. But
we aren’t going to address that sort of
thing!
There are other disparities which
are either obviously or probably due to
hereditary factors, but bet on it, there
won’t be a program to ensure that “white
men can jump.”
T ng the Census
he U.S. Constitution calls for
an “actual enumeration” of the
population every ten years, this
enumeration to serve as the basis for
Congressional representation.
The requirement couldn’t be clearer,
but the Clinton administration is anx-
ious to introduce a manipulable “fudge
factor” to ensure that
its favorite people —
“minorities and the
poor” — are enhanced
in numbers. This
administration’s
seething mass of “ad-
vocacy groups” will do
anything to swing elec-
tions and collect fed-
eral funds.
The 1990 Census led to wails from
big-city Democratic mayors that their
“minorities and poor” were
undercounted, because federal largesse
depends on bloating the totals. The fact
that people were leaving pestiferous
urban agglomerations in droves was an
unacceptable explanation for diminish-
ing population totals.
There are statistical techniques
which might be used in good faith, but
good faith is not the name of the game
here. The Constitution calls for an “ac-
tual count,” not the self-serving cook-
ing of the books we could expect from
prostitutes in the field of statistics.
Death to the Boy Scouts!
T he American Civil Liberties
Union is, as ever, in the van-
guard of the struggle against
Such fun, kicking
the crutches from un-
der an aged veteran
amputee — or his
widow...
Vol. IV, No. 3
19
The RESISTER
freedom of association. The ACLU and
its socialist allies hate the Boy Scouts of
America because they discriminate
against girls, scoutmasters with a yen
for boys, and what’s this “brave, clean,
and reverent” stuff?
Their effort to change or destroy the
classic concept of Boy Scouts has gone
on for a long time. The Scouts have
fought a rear-guard action without any
sympathy in the mass media. Liberals
go for the jugular, cutting off donations,
access to public buildings and so on.
The ACLU also has a real talent for
infecting judges. A New Jersey judge
decided that “James Dale, a gay activist
and editor at POZ, a magazine for
HIV-positive people,” had to be made
a scoutmaster; the basis for this deci-
sion was the “public accomodation” pre-
text. The judge admitted that labeling
the Boy Scouts a “public accomodation”
was just a pretext, but said that any sen-
sible decision “would frustrate our goal
of eliminating the cancer of discrimi-
nation” from the fine state of New Jer-
sey.
It has even been argued successfully
in our cockamamie courts that barring
undesirables from voluntary and un-
paid positions in the Boy Scouts con-
stitutes “employment discrimination.”
In two states, girls are suing to get
into the Boy Scouts because Boy Scout
stuff is more fun. This is probably true.
I gave up on the Girl Scouts because in
my day, Girl Scouts were instructed in
the domestic arts. With younger sib-
lings at home, I was seeking escape
from the domestic arts, but the local Girl
Scouts informed me that “fire,” as in
building a campfire in the woods, was
something I should not expect to be
doing anytime soon.
But the Boy Scouts wouldn’t have
me. Make them take me!
ChopUs in Half!
| egative Population Growth,
Inc., of Washington, D.C.
X ^1 places full-page ads in liberal
publications, “asking” Americans to cut
our population in half. That would
make everything “sustainable.” NPG
is asking less of us than Mikhail
Gorbachev’s “state of the world” gath-
ering, which cheered the idea of chop-
ping the entire human population to a
tenth of its present level. Otherwise,
we’ll destroy the earth and we’ll all be
killed, trust us would we lie to you?
“Sustainable” is a codeword —
watch for it. It certifies that the scheme
is part of a vast array of foundation-
supported policies.
Negative Population was established
in 1972, when Rockefeller money was
spawning many new “groups.” We do
not mention Rockefeller sponsorship
lightly. Population-control was a project
ofjohn D. Rockefeller, Jr. early in 20th
Century, when he funded Margaret
Sanger. Sanger’s pitch was “improve-
ment of the breed,” a
pitch for selectivity
which cannot be used
today, of course. John
D. Rockefeller II I con-
tinued Daddy’s effort
until his death. This is
just part of the clan’s
drive to “control” the
human race and the
earth itself. (Megalo-
maniac, maybe, but
they’re into the fifth
generation ofcontrol-
freakery.)
Rockefeller money
funded the Kinsey In-
stitute for “sex re-
search.” Beginning in
the 1940s, the “Kinky”
Institute “proved scientifically” that ten
percent of men are queer, and that little
babies really loved being sexually mo-
lested by the staff. Founder Alfred
“Kinky” had to be hospitalized when
his own off-the-wall methods of self-
gratification led to near-death experi-
ences. In the wake of a couple of recent
books critical of the Institute, its cur-
rent director assured us that they are
pursuing vital research, such as clock-
ing how fast boys can....
On a more serious note, John D.
Rockefeller, III was also personally re-
sponsible for buying off the Reverend
Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame.
It was part of the effort to change
Catholic doctrine on birth-control. As
an eager Rockefeller version of the
“castle Catholic,” Hesburgh has been
so useful in the full range of projects
that he was made a trustee, and eventu-
ally chairman of the Rockefeller Foun-
dation itself.
As for depopulation methods, there
are two basic approaches. Mass mur-
der is one. The Communists can give
lessons. Prevention of babies can be less
messy, although killing them isn’t. Suck-
ing their brains out in broad daylight
bothers some people.
There is a 1969 population-control
memo published on page 342 of Julian
Simon’s book The Ultimate Resource. It
is now 30 years old and rewards a close
look. Item Four was simple enough.
“Encourage increased homosexuality.”
The effort to do so became quite public
from then on. Nowadays, foundation
effort has spawned “GLBT” organiza-
tions on American campuses. GLBT
stands for Gay Lesbian Bisexual [and]
Transgendered.
People calling them-
selves GLBTs are fa-
vored because they are
unlikely to reproduce.
That’s the good news.
Arguments made
before Congress in fa-
vor of the Equal
Rights Amendment,
back in 1970, featured
presentations by Zero
Population Growth,
another Rockefeller
front. The Amend-
ment would have “re-
quired” the drafting of
women for the armed
forces, and the mili-
tary would then have
to keep the women from getting preg-
nant. One enthusiast recommended
loading the women with testosterone.
Other 1969 “proposed measures to
reduce U.S. fertility” would use our own
tax money as the carrot and stick. Sug-
gestions were for a “substantial mar-
riage tax, child tax, tax married [people]
more than single, remove parents’ tax
exemption, additional taxes on parents
of more than one or two children.”
Also, “reduce/eliminate maternity
leave or benefits [and any] family al-
lowances, [give] bonuses for delayed
marriage [and/or child-bearing], and
so forth. Under “economic deterrents”
to having more than “1 or 2” children,
we find “limit [or] eliminate publicly-
financed medical care, scholarships,
housing, [and] loans to families” with
more than their small ration of chil-
dren. ’’They even threw in a suggestion
for “chronic Depression,” since the
hard times of the 1930s had convinced
responsible parents that they could not
afford children.
Keep in mind that these social plan-
ners are the same folks who brought us
fourth-generation unwed welfare moth-
ers as public burdens. Their propa-
ganda is curiously silent on this point,
As for depopulation
methods, there are
two basic approaches.
Mass murder is one....
Prevention of babies
can be less messy, al-
though killing them
isn’t. Sucking their
brains out in broad
daylight bothers
some people.
20
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
seeking to ration the children of respon-
sible people. Sometimes the pitch is
that middle-class Americans “consume
more of the earths precious resources”
than the welfare leisure class. There is
no mention of the consumption of re-
sources by the multi-zillionaire
Rockefeller clan.
A final column of proposals make it
abundantly clear that “family planning”
has but one objective, the prevention
of babies, whether you want and can
afford them or not. Under the get-tough
column, population planners listed
compulsory abortion, compulsory ster-
ilization, “confine childhearing to only
a limited number of adults, stock-cer-
tificate type permits for children,
discouraging] private home owner-
ship, [and] fertility control agents in
water supply.”
In 1998, we’re still in the soft-sell
columns. Negative Population Growth,
Incorporated “proposed incentives [and
penalties] to motivate parents to have
no more than two children.” Portions
of the 1969 plan which NPG dares to
surface publicly include “eliminate the
present federal income tax exemption
for dependent children horn after a
specified date. Give a federal income
tax credit only to those parents who
have not more than two children. Those
with three or more would lose the credit
entirely. Give an annual cash grant to
parents who pay little or no income tax,
and who have no more than two chil-
dren. Those with three or more chil-
dren would lose the cash grant entirely.”
(Leave your unauthorized babies along
the roadside, like in China.)
In none of these proposals is there
the slightest interest in whether those
who willing to afford more children
have the right to do so. The intention is
that plebes will lose the right, the capa-
bility, and through indoctrination, the
desire to have more than their ration
of children.
River-Grab
R esponding as ever to the land-
grabbers, the Clinton adminis-
tration proposes to ignore
Congress and nationalize our rivers.
Rivers, of course, have drainage basins,
and thus more land that can be grabbed
to “save” the rivers.
The pitch is that people in the target
area should feel honored to have their
river declared an “American Heritage
River.” A $100,000-a-year bureaucrat
would be grandly entitle the River N avi-
gator and placed in charge of the land
and activities of the folks so “honored.”
What can be expected? Witness the
Corps of Engineers, which has declared
puddles and wet lawns “navigable wa-
ters of the United States” for purposes
of oppression.
This is just another tentacle of the
Green Landgrab, which has been traced
back to its roots in the persons and for-
tunes of Laurance Rockefeller, Senior
and Junior. Larry Senior began this
project at least forty years ago.
Robbingjane to Payjean
A h, “the chil-dwen”! Hillary
Rodham, who produced one
child and consigned her to a
taxpayer-provided nanny, nonetheless
fancies herself as the Big Smother of
Us All, Chief of the Village it Takes to
Raise a Child.
The per-child tax deduction allotted
to taxpayers bears no
visible relation to the
actual cost of raising a
child. The government
gladly pays many
times that deduction to
raise a welfare
mother’s child on the
taxpayers’ money. So
the federal number-
crunchers have a very
clear idea of costs. But
parents cari ng for their
own children are not
what’s wanted. So
Rodham-type propos-
als would offer more
generous deductions to parents who put
their kids in day-care.
....The Peasants
Rejoice About the
Miracle of
Collectivism.
Stealth Statehood
M arch saw salad days for
Washington lobbyists.
Lawyers left out of the
president’s sex scandal were available
to participate in efforts to change the
status ofPuerto Rico. While the nation
basked in blissful ignorance,
Washington’s newspapers were awash
in full-page ads, and even 20-page full-
color inserts aimed at the “hearts and
minds” in Congress.
Why the Congressional March
Madness? By a 209-208 margin (and
that last vote must have cost a bundle!),
the House passed a hill intended to
push Puerto Rico toward statehood.
There is no urgent problem, and it
makes no visible sense. Does Speaker
Newt Gingrich really believe that a state
ofPuerto Rico would send six Repub-
licans to the I louse and two to the Sen-
ate — which was Newt’s pitch — or he
is merely advancing another Establish-
ment scheme to balkanize America. We
bet on the latter.
As if to prove that the Republican
Party has honestly earned the sobriquet
of “the Stupid Party,” the six Congress-
men to which a state of Puerto Rico
would be entitled would have to be
carved from the hides of existing states
— such as the thinly-
populated Western
states — although
New York and Penn-
sylvania are also can-
didates.
Puerto Rico, a cen-
tury ago, was the final
remnant of the Span-
ish Empire in the
Western Hemisphere.
From a geopolitical
point of view, it made
a nice guardian of the
Windward Passage,
the major entrance to
the Caribbean Sea.
This was especially important after the
Panama Canal was completed. In other
respects the island has been a drain. This
impoverished dependency was an in-
viting object of solicitude during Presi-
dent Roosevelt’s New Deal. “Planners”
descended on the place in droves and
never left. It was the Puerto Ricans who
left, so that about forty percent of them
now reside in the United States.
Puerto Ricans are now well off by
Latin American standards, with several
times the per-capita income of their
neighbors, yet “poor” by North Ameri-
can standards, with half the per-capita
income of Mississippi. Puerto Ricans,
still Spanish-speaking and “Hispanic”
in culture, do not clamor for indepen-
dence. “Commonwealth” status gives
them American citizenship, places them
inside the U.S. tariff wall, subjects them
This impoverished
dependency was an
inviting object of so-
licitude during Presi-
dent Roosevelt’s New
Deal. “Planners” de-
scended on the place
in droves and never
left.
Vol. IV, No. 3
21
The RESISTER
to the military draft, excuses them from
income taxes, does not allow them a
vote in Congress or in presidential elec-
tions, but extends to them a raft of “en-
titlements,” not the least of which are
the food stamps most of them live on.
Aside from a hard corp of activists,
independence is a non-starter, since it
would diminish the flow of goodies
from Washington. However, as oppo-
nents point out, statehood could bring
the United States a “Northern Ireland”
or a “Quebec” type of indigestible prob-
lem. And then, a small but violence-
prone subversive “movement” offers
scope for foreign mischief-makers.
Why invite this? Well, we have a rul-
ing class which yearns to rule the world,
and in so doing, to demote the United
States to a mere region or province. We
should therefore get used to being “a
minority in the world.” This is why we
have the persistent Establishment ef-
fort to demote English, to “brown” the
nation, to halkanize it, and of course to
socialize it.
The Nanny-State
Messes with Your Car
A ”$6.3 billion package of tax in-
centives and research” was an-
nounced by Fearless Leader “to
mobilize cutting-edge technology in the
fight against global warming.” The
president’s notion involves “a $3000 to
$4000 tax credit” for buying an as-yet-
non-existent “mid-size” car getting 50
mpg, or $4000 for a car getting 75 mpg!
Reminds us of the old L’il Abner car-
toons featuring the Japanese “Nomoto
Car.”
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) tried
to splash ice-water on President
Clinton’s juvenile enthusiasm for cars
miraculously achieving the mileage of
motorcycles. Inhofe scorns the “global
warming” myth; for that and other rea-
sons, he is opposed to the “Kyoto glo-
bal warming treaty.”
And have you seen the Volkswagen
ads for the latter-day Bug? It would be
illegal to build the simple Bug today, so
it’s an expensive Safetymobile that looks
like a Bug, hut costs ever so much more!
The pitch is toward aging flower-chil-
dren, but I’ll bet it “bombs” terribly.
The nanny-state also wants to force
us to buy electric cars. Is the theory that
fuel used to generate electricity is en-
tirely different from fuel used to by in-
ternal-combustion engines?
On another front, Nanny Joan
Claybrook almost single-handedly
foisted mandatory airbags on us. The
fact that these bags have killed dozens
of kids led to an Even Better Idea —
how about “no kids under twelve in
front seats” at all! (Wait for it.)
The nanny-state dictates that De-
troit produce mini-cars with the pro-
tective characteristics of a
candy-wrapper in case of accident.
“Sport-utility vehicles” are roomier and
safer than mini-cars. People like them,
but a Congressman recently reported
that he had never before encountered
such “hatred” of SUVs
as he found in the A1
Gore camp. So look
for “tough new federal
regulations” to
dampen our enthusi-
asm.
Nobody loves a
drunk driver, espe-
cially one who wipes
out your kid. The ori-
gins of Mothers
Against Drunk Driv-
ers is understandable.
Being drunk (or
zonked) is no excuse
for doing harm. But
MADD, like other
“groups,” would have
to fold its tent and fade
away if it achieved its
goal. “Groups” don’t
do that, so it lobbied fiercely to have
the federal government mandate a
lower definition of drunkenness. They
failed — this time.
What we are seeing, alas, is more of
the nanny-state. The “war on tobacco”
is just another aspect of the zeal of the
abolitionist.
Tax Policy — Old and New
I n his new book, The Great Betrayal,
Pat Buchanan summarizes New
World Order tax policy very suc-
cinctly. Speaking of tax and tariff policy
reversals, he states, “The old Republi-
cans taxed work, savings, and invest-
ment at 0 percent, and foreign goods at
40%. We [now] tax the return on sav-
ings and work at 40 percent and for-
eign goods at 0 percent. Thus we are
starved for savings — and swamped
with foreign goods.”
Critics of protective tariffs say, cor-
rectly, they often protect inefficient in-
dustries. On the other hand, there is a
lot to be said for the old zero tax on
“work, savings, and investment”!
As Buchanan points out, before the
imposition of the federal income tax,
soon followed by Prohibition, the only
federal functionary an ordinary citizen
saw was the postmaster. Then came the
Revenooers, and nowadays the feds arc
all over us.
“The Bazaar is Open”
T hus was announced the bidding
for Congressional votes on the
Establishment’s 1993 North
American Free Trade treaty. When the
Establishment as-
sembles all its ex-
presidents and
would-be presidents
to have them perform
as a chorus, it means a
really key piece of the
New World Order is
being set in place.
Pat Buchanan
wrote of the final
crunch on November
17, 1993, “In the end,
they had to buy it. In
the end, they won the
bidding war, not the
battle for hearts and
m i n d s . . . T h e
president’s men
won... by buying up
their representatives
with deals on toma-
toes, peanut butter, sugar, citrus, trade
centers, C-17s and development
banks.”
No One H as Said It Better!
M aureen Dowd of the New
YorkTimes (!) suggests that
Bill Clinton must have made
the classic pact with the devil. “It would
explain the extraordinary level of hu-
man sacrifice” around him, “why so
many people around him end up dead,
jailed, betrayed, shackled, exiled, sub-
poenaed, depressed, humiliated, broke,
ruined, and smeared. (And, in the case
of poor Buddy, neutered.)”
Censorship — ADL Style
P rotect yourself from “harmful”
information, ideas, opinions,
and thoughts! The Anti-Defa-
mation League of B’nai Brith has a
computer program that will automati-
cally kick over to its own web site any
inquiries addressed to those disap-
proved of by this Jewish organization.
As Buchanan
points out, before the
imposition of the fed-
eral income tax, soon
followed by Prohibi-
tion, the only federal
functionary an ordi-
nary citizen saw was
the postmaster. Then
came the Revenooers,
and nowadays the
feds are all over us.
22
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
(Others of a suspicious nature may al-
ready imagine that websites adorned
with lurid swastikas are out there as bait,
to discover the identities of any who
may “hit” on them.)
“U.S. Seeks to Foster
Multiethnic Bosnia”
A s if we haven’t given ourselves
enough grief with
“multiculturalism” — deliber-
ate divisiveness joined with forcible in-
tegration — bestowing this policy upon
unwilling foreigners seems to be the
mission of the U.S. armed forces. Gen-
eral Wesley Clark’s job, as NATO com-
mander, is to occupy this Balkan land
until the political setup is satisfactory
to the general’s masters. And who are
they? Members of the Council on For-
eign Relations.
General Clark was picked up by the
CFR as a lowly major. He was plucked
from an armor battalion in Germany
for a government financed tour of duty
at the headquarters of the CFR on Park
Avenue in New York City. It is no co-
incidence at all that all American
NATO commanders are CFR products
who know what is expected of them.
The Powderkeg of Europe
N obody in his right mind really
wants to get involved in the an-
cient and complex tribal wars
of the Balkans. But those who think
themselves anointed to rule the world
are very busy indeed. Listen as the fol-
lowing Council on Foreign Relations
member press forward with the brib-
ery and arm-twisting. Madeleine
Albright promises “decisive and firm
action,” which one assumes to be rather
muscular. Then we hear Jeane
Kirkpatrick rattling her saber — “the
longer we wait, the higher the price of
our inevitable involvement” in Kosovo.
Some 500 American soldiers, wearing
the United Nations insignia which
Michael New disdained, are the offi-
cially-designated “tripwire” next door
to Kosovo in Macedonia. Such are the
joys of playing globocop.
The “clear, limited, and achievable”
Bosnia mission of 1995 turned out to
be another Clinton fib. Clinton’s Ox-
ford roomie, Strobe Talbott, caught the
fib bug; “no mission-creep,” and no “na-
tion-building,” but with 8500 Ameri-
can troops mired in place, the New
World Order can write the basic laws,
design the currency and the flag, and
make or break the local politicos in and
around Bosnia.
The Balkans were a mess under the
Turks and then under the Austro-Hun-
garian Empire, a mess after Woodrow
Wilson’s team Fin-
ished drawing lines on
maps at the end of
World War I, a mess
during the interwar
period, a headache to
the German Army
during World War II.
The Balkans are a
mess now. To expect
miracles here is as feckless as expecting
miracles in Haiti.
Bring the Balkans Home!
I n The Resister ofW'm ter 1998 (Vol-
ume IV, Number 2), Thomas
Chittum expanded upon his pos-
sible scenarios for “Civil War II” here
in America. This was shocking enough
at first reading, but it becomes less so
as one sits back and takes it in slowly.
Certainly the stage is being set. Even as
American troops are sent to play
globocop in the Balkans, our own Es-
tablishment is keenly balkanizing the
United States by creating separate, an-
tagonistic ethnic groups within our
country.
Georgie Anne Geyer, a well-con-
nected ladyjournalist, knows about the
role of the Ford (and Rockefeller) Foun-
dations in deliberately sowing and nur-
turing disunity. She will go no farther
than to make passing mention of it —
which is more than other writers will
venture. The Ford Foundation has spent
30-40 years building rabidly anti-
American radical leftist “groups” claim-
ing to represent “Hispanics.”They are
funded to create “Chicano studies,” us-
ing outrageously slanted “texts” for
these propaganda courses, and also to
“prepare” people for their citizenship
tests! We can thank the foundations for
“bilingual education,” which is not in-
tended to be educational. It makes jobs
for apparatchiks , it reduces the likeli-
hood of children speaking foreign lan-
guages learning English — and thus
finishing school and becoming assimi-
lated as Americans with a good future.
Discontented minorities are simply
weapons of destruction.
What the foundations have always
done is to pioneer destructive “pro-
grams” and then fob them off on the
federal government, to be funded by the
taxpayers and run by leftist bureaucrats.
This leaves the foundations free to use
their tax-exempt billions to create more
and worse programs for the next esca-
lation of trouble.
Oversimplified? No.
This is what they do,
period.
This disaffection
was recently mani-
fested in a virtual “soc-
cer riot” in Los
Angeles, when the
American team was
trashed by a stadium filled with Mexi-
cans living in the United States. A late
1 997 issue of National Review (Decem-
ber 31) took a look at the forces of divi-
siveness by Scott McConnell. In
keeping with what appears to be the
rule, he held short of exposing the fi-
nancial underpinnings of a vast array
of “groups” feeding Mexican
irredentism. Nonetheless, his descrip-
tion of the situation was revealing, as
far as it went.
Our Establishment hates us. Our
“leaders” want to make a mess of
America.
Yeah, Well, Aside from That. . . .
I t was about a one-day story, and in
very few newspapers at that. A Chi-
nese “in” with the Beijing authori-
ties was in a position to offer fresh hu-
man organs. Plenty of prisoners could
be executed to order. Well, so they “har-
vest” organs. What’s the big deal?
Hmm. Let’s smuggle into Chinese
prisons a very slow-acting systemic
poison. A prisoner about to be knocked
off because there’s a purchase order for
his liver could then take the poison, and
die with the hope that whoever bought
his liver would regret it in slow agony.
Partners in Sleaze
P eople like us wouldn’t buy any
thing from either party, so this
note is merely “for the record.
The United Nations sells fraudulent
Human Rights, while Bcnneton of Italy
sells “overpriced sweaters with images
of dying AIDS patients, kissing clergy,
and genitalia.” Now they’re in partner-
ship.
“In honor of the 50th anniversary
of the Declaration of Human Rights,
Benneton will distribute a poster with
text from the document surrounded by
an ethnic rainbow of faces.” A spokes-
Our Establishment
hates us. Our “lead-
ers” want to make a
mess of America.
Vol. IV, No. 3
23
man for the United Nations said, “We
don’t have the money to bring this mes-
sage to the people of the world.”
In small print, it says that these part-
ners in sleaze are not really pushing each
others products, so clear your mind of
suspicion.
Saber-Rattling Ladies
S aber-rattling by the ladies is
something you are also likely to
hear more often, as the New
World Order lumbers along its or-
dained path. Both Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright and former
American U.N. delegate Jeane
Kirkpatrick were breathing fire and
threatening thunderbolts over Kosovo.
Surely American boys, and let’s not for-
get the girls, should interpose their bod-
ies between contending tribes, whether
Balkan or African.
Strobe Talbott, Bill Clinton’s roomie
at Oxford and therefore a star in our
foreign policy firmament, swore up and
down that“nation-building” would not
be the “open-ended” mission in Bosnia.
So the mission is open-ended — it could
drag on “forever” — while American
money and military presence deter-
mines winners and losers in Balkan
politics, supplies and trains armies, de-
signs flags, writes constitutions, and
prints money for the “nations” being
“built.”
Our Groveler in Africa
O ur president went to Africa to
apologize for “our” sins. This
is a man who wouldn’t dream
of apologizing for a single sleazy, dis-
graceful, and possibly criminal act of his
own! None of us had anything to do
with slavery, but there must have been
a behind-the-scenes struggle to keep
Clinton from promising “reparations”
out of our pockets.
Actually, the cheering crowd in
Ghana nearly solved our problem early
in the trip.
Seeking a piece of that white magic,
enthusiasts nearly hauled our Groveler-
in-Chief into the sea of black faces. He
could have disappeared into a thousand
little shrines.
Clinton’s groveling even embar-
rassed Yoweri Musaveni, the current
dictator in Uganda. He told Clinton to
knock it off, the African chiefs deliv-
ered slaves to port. (Let’s note that any
slaves from far-inland Uganda were
taken by the Arabs, but that won’t make
The RESISTER
it into Victim Studies 101.)
Next stop Rwanda. We apologize for
not sending troops to prevent the
slaughter of staggering numbers of
people. The more obvious guilt of the
locals was passed over in silence.
On to South Africa. Since “libera-
tion” it goes without saying that the
murder of many hundreds of white
farmers was ignored. But what about
the number of blacks who were burned
alive in the streets (“necklaced” with
tires and gasoline), one by one, to en-
force the rule of his hosts, the African
National Congress?
Our president actually praised the
perpetrators as brave “protesters”; not
a hint that necklacing
was maybe a little over
the edge....
The guilt- mongers,
like Clinton’s newly-
proclaimed “spiritual
advisor,” the charlatan
Jesse Jackson, milk
“slavery” like the Ho-
locaust. “Two million”
slaves were allegedly
shipped from photo-
opportunity Goree Is-
land off Dakar in
Senegal. As with the
Holocaust, “do the
math” and you will
find the figures to be a tad inflated. Fur-
thermore, Goree was French, and the
slaves went to the French Caribbean,
not to America. That’s not in Victim
Studies, either.
Will the fact that the “noble hero” of
the cleaned-up tale of Amistad returned
to Africa to go into business as a slave-
trader make it into the curriculum?
The Dignity of the Presidency
I t seems that there are all too many
gag items on the market pertain-
ing to Vaffaire Lewinsky, and they
reflect poorly upon the dignity of the
Presidency, leaving our undignified
president aside. “Patriotic Profits,” a
front for the Democratic National
Committee, has been urging the apparel
industry to forget about Lewinsky be-
rets as a fall fashion line. No mention
yet of Lewinsky designer knee-pads.
It may be fairly easy to influence
sympathetic fixed targets like Gap, but
what of the fly-by-night street peddlers?
Tapes offering Lewinsky “hot talk,”
plus sex toys and sex dolls reminiscent
of the Oval Office are rather embar-
rassing. Even worse are Monicondoms
in “intern ice” flavor and suggestions
that you always pull on your “slick willy.”
T mly or Merely Seamy?
he New Republic was recently in
a twist over a recent auction of
Kennedy memorabilia. Never
mind the apparently moronic act of
paying $1,100 for a plastic comb once
used by JFK. Imagination led to the
notion that perhaps the dandruff would
be priceless for cloning purposes. But
it turns out that a collector who already
had a Marilyn Monroe hairbrush could
now sport a matched pair. Perhaps dan-
druff DN A can produce what Jack and
Marilyn did not.
Ponderers of pub-
lic policy object that
these auctions “priva-
tize what should be
public, and publicize
what should be pri-
vate.” But who is to de-
termine the lines of
separation? The
memorabilia being
deplored consisted of
things JFK had pre-
sumably left lying
around the office. It
was picked up by his
secretary, Evelyn Lin-
coln, and left to her heir, Robert White.
The Kennedy family feigned out-
rage. These items “once belonged to our
father. They now belong to our family,
to history, and to the American people.”
Translation: We got less than a lousy
$35,00,000 from the sale of Jackie’s
stuff, so we should be collecting on this
as well.
The Kennedys did not prevail, al-
though they cooled the bidding ardor
by leaving the threat of lawsuits hang-
ing over purchasers. Nonetheless, “a
sheet of presidential doodles” brought
$12,250, while $700,000 bought the
very briefcase (less contents, of course)
that JFK took with him to Dallas! The
motivation of the Kennedy family was
quite apparent — greed.
Title ix
e are “just beginning to en-
force Title IX of the Civil
Rights Act,” declaims one of
Hillary’s appointees. Any educational
institution snagged in the federal drag-
net — which is to say, essentially all of
them — will have to curtail men’s var-
Seeking a piece of
that white magic, en-
thusiasts nearly
hauled our Groveler-
in-Chief into the sea
of black faces. He
could have disap-
peared into a thou-
sand little shrines.
24
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
sity sports and dragoon women into the
gym so that men and women can be
shown to engage equally in sports,
whether they want to or not. Who cares
if the girls don’t want to play soccer and
lacrosse, and who cares if it costs more
to put a boy on the football field than to
put a girl on a field hockey team, and
who cares if womens’ sports do not at-
tract equal spectator interest?
School and college administrators
can moan all they like; it doesn’t mean a
thing to an “empowered” bitchy bu-
reaucrat armed with federal muscle.
And sport is just the beginning. Math,
science, and engineering are “male-
dominated”! It may be natural, but what
has that to do with anything? Who’s to
say that “a woman’s way of knowing” is
not just as valid a method of determin-
ing the strength of a bridge?
Feminists in Academe have fumed
at the resistance of “hard science” to
their inroads. In squishy academic fields
where nothing has to pass a reality-
check, inroads have been easy. But ac-
tivists have complained that “science
works” a fact which some regard as in-
tolerable.
The Infertility Disability
N o luck in having a baby? It must
be some third party’s fault, or
certainly a third party’s obli-
gation to fix. There are a couple of ap-
proaches. First, you can blame your
employer; “stress” must be having this
effect on you. Pass a law to make em-
ployers include fertility treatments in
the employee medical plan. Then im-
pose price-controls on the price of fe-
male eggs for implantation. (Apparently
the price has been going up, so “the
poor” can’t afford them.)
And how about infertility as a fed-
erally-anointed “disability”? Lawyers
are keen to argue that having babies is
a major life activity, so the infertile are
just as disabled as the halt, the blind, all
addicts, sufferers from chronic lateness
syndrome, and those who just can’t
seem to concentrate.
WHY DO WE
AMERICANS
SUBMIT TO THIS?
by
Dr. Susan L.M. Huck
A New Book From Americas
Most Damning Critic of
Liberals
Why Do We Americans Submit to...
What?
The D-List — This is what liberals like to see in the rest of us.
Dumb, as in “dumbed down” and mute.
Docile, ready to be guided and trained, ready to accept any outrage.
Deprived of as much of our income as we will allow to be taken from us.
Dispossessed of more and more property rights.
Denied as many of our other rights as we will allow to be taken from us.
Devalued as citizens by the creation of hordes of “instant voters” in time for elections.
Demoted from independent citizens to dependent subjects.
Deceived by the current propaganda line, whatever it may be.
Diverted from an examination of the true situation.
Denounced for destroying the earth, oppressing “others,” harboring bad thoughts....
Defensive and guilt-ridden about something or other, all the time.
Deracinated, if white — forbidden a sense of racial identity or pride.
Divided into “groups” or “blocs” for easy manipulation.
Demeaned, as liberals in government assert authority over private and family affairs.
Degraded by the squalor of public miseducation and government corruption.
Displaced from schools and jobs by federal pressure favoring federally-favored groups.
Dispirited in the face of so much gone wrong, and so little chance of fixing it.
Disoriented by inversion of laws and values — what is right is now wrong, what is bad is
now good — and vice versa , of course.
Demoralized by the realization that any attempt to oppose liberalism will be ridiculed,
denied institutional support, marginalized, and punished.
Disorganized as foundations expend their tax-free fortunes by organizing synthetic
“groups” and anointing “leaders" to carry out foundation plans. There is no such support for
those opposing foundation-sponsored “planned social change.”
Descabezado, or “beheaded,” deprived of leadership; potential leaders who are aware of
and opposed to the plans of the liberal Establishment can expect to be smeared and, if that
doesn’t work, ruined in some manner, usually financially.
And finally...
Disarmed is the ultimate liberal precaution. Anything can be done to diarmed people, as
the history of the Twentieth Century more than amply demonstrates.
©1997 by Dr. Susan L.M. Huck
$ 20.00
RESISTER Books
PO Box 35046
Cash, Money Order, or Check
(Allow 5 weeks for delivery) Fayetteville, NC 28303
Vol. IV, No. 3
25
The RESISTER
HORROR QUOTES
D. van Oort
These days, reality is so maligned, and reason so vilified, that our enemies
sometimes dispense with even the slightest pretense of honesty. Because they
openly admit their intent to lie, the fact that they then proceed to do so should
shock no one. Below are some statements of intent, and some bald-faced lies. Just
so you know what Communists, Fascists and nihilists are really made of.
Kids who kill is hardly a new story , but
here we are having a national debate about
it. That's good. The question is how we
will deploy our emotional firepower... Be-
cause the tragic stories linger longer now ,
they can be leveraged more easily for social
change. Sure , the logic that connects this
massacre to a larger social agenda is thin.
But logic can be overrated. And so my irri-
tation at media “lessons" subsides into a
question. Which is worse: to take a random
tragedy and make it a symbol that galva-
nizes the country f Or to let the moment
pass without any effort to channel the fear
and emotion into something constructive?
I d argue that the latter is worse. ... [A] s the
shots fired in Jonesboro reverberate around
the world , let's harness the hysteria to the
huger work before us. [Emphases
added. |
Jonathan Alter, “Harnessing the
I lysteria,” News Week, 6 April 1998
I usually start this column with a
quote in which the speaker pro-
claims that ‘A’ is non-’A’, which
means that some essential fact of real-
ity is not what it actually is. 1 do that
because bad ideologies ultimately be-
gin at that level, and that is where they
must be demolished. But that nasty little
demagogue, Jonathan Alter, didn’t say
that something isn’t what it is. He bla-
tantly admits that there is no sound
basis whatsoever for linking the
Jonesboro murders to his “larger social
agenda.” Then he whimpers (hoping
you will believe him), that “logic is over-
rated.”
Thus he admits his intent to, a) lie
about the Jonesboro mass-murders so
as to, b) manipulate the blind emotions
of the general populace. How can he
admit that he is going to lie, yet expect
his readers to believe anything he says
after that point?
Because his statements were never
directed at honest minds to begin with.
Jonathan Alter wasn’t speaking to his
entire readership any-
more than he was ad-
mining to being a liar
(Please! Help me be-
fore I lie again!). He
was speaking to a care-
fully cultivated audi-
ence. The rest of us
were supposed to sim-
ply see him as a con-
cerned idealist,
desperate to sway this
country away from the
Jonesboro type of car-
nage which is becom-
ing increasingly
common. We are ex-
pected to feel that he
“means well.” But liars
of Alters caliber never
mean well. T he very act
of lying to innocent people constitutes
a deliberate assault against their ratio-
nal interests.
Lies are not told without purpose,
and are always told to induce new false
situations. Those false new situations
are designed to lead you as far away
from reality as the liar thinks necessary.
Reality, however, is precisely where your
interests reside. You can have no ratio-
nal interest in the unreal.
Think back on the last time you were
provably lied to. What did the liar try
to make you believe? Something which
led you away from whatever your ac-
tual interest was. He tried to trick you
...liars of Alters
bent no longer fear
moral condemnation
from a public that se-
riously debates the
character flaws of
television personali-
ties. Alter (and those
who rally to him)
know that and like it
that way.
into believing something which ulti-
mately harmed you, either immediately
or further down the road. And the ly-
ing bastard knew it. The fact that your
reality-based interests would lead vou
to oppose him is exactly why he lied to
you. He had to know what reality was
before he tried to obscure it. He had to
know what your interests were before
he tried to sabotage them. No matter
his excuse for lying to you, the fact re-
mains that he knowingly and deliber-
ately tried to hurt you. Those are not
the actions of a friend (or even a
stranger), but of a vicious enemy. I ,iars
are the rational person’s enemy and
must be treated as such, without excep-
tion.
Even so, Alter didn’t lie; he merely
stated his intention to. What you wit-
nessed was a rallying cry. Not to his gen-
eral readership, but from one liar to all
other liars within range of his commu-
nication. This time, we were able to
hear that rallying cry
because liars of Alters
bent no longer fear
moral condemnation
from a public that se-
riously debates the
character flaws of tele-
vision personalities.
Alter (and those who
rally to him) know that
and like it that way.
Alter’s “rally lie”
was intended to coa-
lesce a cabal of liars
around a specific cause
that opposes your ra-
tional interests, and
which you would op-
pose if you could con-
— — ceivc of it. If you
thought clearly about
it. If you refused to “channel the fear
and emotion into something construc-
tive” in order to “harness the hysteria.”
No, Jonathan Alter does not seek to
harness your hysteria. That is simply
the phrase he used to obscure his true
intent. What he seeks is to harness you
by means of your hysteria. 1 le was ex-
plicit about lying in order to do so. Af-
ter all, logic is the process of
non-contradictory identification of
facts. Among other things, that makes
it a process by which liars are caught.
That is what he means when he says,
“logic can be overrated.” He is not mak-
ing a philosophic statement, but a tac-
26
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
tical one. He is saying that he and his
little cabal of lying bastards should not
expect to be caught.
And that informs you what he
thinks of his readership. Those who
were not intended to be part of his ca-
bal. Those to whom his statements were
never directed in the first place.
So, if Jonathan Alter opposes real-
ity, scorns logic, intends to lie in the
practice of demagoguery, and thereby
reveals himself to be your enemy to the
core, shouldn’t von be afraid of such a
u n i v e r s e • - h a t i n g n i h i li s t r 1 1 lin g y o u r 1 i f e
at gun point? Shouldn’t this fear lead
you to eternal vigilance against him and
his kind? Shouldn’t you be intolerant of
them, impolite to them, and unwilling
to compromise with them? Shouldn’t
you practice spotting them and their
methods now so that, if needed, you
are well skilled at target identification?
Damned right! So, let's read our news-
papers and news magazines with a
highlighter in one hand and a scissors
in the other.
Even if the theory /of global wanning]
is wrong, we will he doing the right thing
in terms of economic and environmental
policy fhy accepting that theory as fact].
Timothy VVirth, Undersecretary of
State for Global Affairs, in a 1990 in-
terview. | Bush administration, folks. |
I f Jonathan Alter proclaimed to his
formative cabal that, “our victims
are too illogical to catch us when
we start lying,” then Timothy VVirth is
a member of an already-established
cabal — formed after Vietnam — who
proclaim, “It doesn’t matter if our vie
tims catch us or not!” The only differ-
ence between the two is time.
The economic and environmental
policy he speaks of is that form of so-
cialism called fascism, f ascism is gov-
ernment control of private property.
Socialism is government ownership of
property. It’s a fine distinction. Social
ists revile fascism because fascism al-
lows property ownership as a facade to
camouflage socialism. At least social-
ists admit to being thieves. Both of them
tactically depend on the initiation of
force against the innocent.
Ideologically, both fascism and so-
cialism derive from altruism. That’s the
doctrine that man has an innate duty to
serve other men, and if he refuses, his
“victims” may “punish” him for “vio-
lating” their “right” to enslave him in
the first place. (You can easily imagine
who will use this lie to sabotage whose
interests.) Altruism is not a doctrine of
reason or reality. It is
The Lie you are com-
manded to believe
without question, es-
pecially when it con-
tradicts what you
know to be true.
The fact that
people do swallow al-
truism is what encour-
ages VVirth to openly
state that it doesn’t
matter if his victims
catch his lies about
global warming. If
they believe the deeper
lie of altruism, then
the end justifies the means, and there-
fore the means are not open to debate.
V he concept of race is a social and cul-
tural construction , with no basis in hu-
man biology...
In a letter to the U.S. Census Bu-
reau from the American Anthropologi-
cal Association.
W e know that members of the
media feel safe admitting
their intention to lie for po-
litical gain. And we know that mem-
bers of the government who have
already politically gained lie because
they know it doesn’t matter when they
get caught. That sets the stage for all the
liars who aren’t yet so confident in our
stupidity that they dare admit lying.
Yes, some concepts are social or cul-
tural constructs (or both) with no basis
in biology or in reality. Such as the ni-
hilistic twaddle proclaiming that fe-
males are even remotely fit to serve in
the military, as beat-cops or as firemen
(just for an off-topic but irresistible ex-
ample). Such as “environmentalism,”
which proclaims on its surface that the
environment will serve us better if we
do not manipulate it to our advantage.
Concepts such as fascism and social-
ism, which proclaim on the surface that
the failure to own and control property
will make us wealthier and happier.
Concepts such as altruism, which un-
derhandedlv proclaims that individu-
als V ve better lives bv sacrificing their
lives to any and all comers. And con-
cepts that proclaim that the color dif-
ferences in skin and eyes, the texture
differences in hair, the medical differ-
ences in pathology, and measurable dif-
ferences in general intelligence are all
mass hallucinations.
Judging from its
name, the American
Anthropological As-
sociation is ostensibly
made up of scientists.
Judging from their
timely (in time that is
for the “national dia-
logue on race” and the
Census Bureau’s plans
to “guesstimate” —
instead of actually
count — minorities in
2000) they are more
likely science groupies
who hang around in
the alley because
they’re not attractive enough to get
backstage.
This organization, having stolen
some measure of claim to a legitimate
field of science and having therefore
gained fawning indulgence by our
nomenklatura , formally held up four fin-
gers, then demanded that government
proclaim that it sees five. And if gov-
ernment decides it sees five, the next
step is for it to use force to ensure that
you see five as well. Or else. Which was
the whole idea in the first place.
PETA distributed a humane education
program for every elementary school in the
U.S., public and private. Developed to
teach children compassion for animals, this
unique program reached more than nine
million schoolchildren. These are just a few
of PETA s stunning triumphs on behalf of
our animal friends. But to win a perma-
nent end to the undeclared — yet very real
— war on animals... J t e need your help as
a caring an imal lo ver.
Junk mail from “People [sic] for the
Ethical | sic | Treatment of Animals”
T he notion of a “war” on animals
is so absurd that it is not meant
to be taken seriously, either bv
the liars who pretend otherwise, or bv
their victims. It is, however, meant to
be absurd enough to distract attention
away from the real war: the war on free
individuals.
A war is an extended physical con-
flict between groups with the object of
killing the enemy and seizing his terri-
tory or forcing his surrender. Humans
Altruism is not a
doctrine of reason or
reality. It is The Lie
you are commanded
to believe without
question, especially
when it contradicts
what you know to be
true.
Vol. IV, No. 3
27
The RESISTER
do not kill animals so that other ani-
mals will observe it and come to the
table asking what they can do to save
themselves. In their entirely, the goals
of and activities engaged in by PETA,
and others like them, are war waged
upon us so that we will offer surrender.
They start with evil laws to protect
“endangered” species, enforced by a
government that is becoming quite ex-
perienced at killing us and seizing our
property. They follow with a wide range
of other wartime activities. They en-
gage in sabotage when they sneak into
laboratories and set the animals loose
(never mind that those animals will just
be rounded up again if they aren’t killed
by the natural and man-made forces
those “caring animal lovers” cast them
amongst unprepared). They use terror-
ism to create fear among the innocent
when they throw paint on little old la-
dies who wear fur (but not on bikers
who wear leather and who are large,
bad-tempered and armed). And they
use a wide range of propaganda, a mi-
nor fraction of which was both quoted
and alluded to above.
The opponents who are to be beaten
into submission are those of us who
use animals in any fashion to better our
lives — which makes us the only defin-
able enemy. We will remain the enemy
until we offer unconditional surrender.
The things we are to surrender uncon-
ditionallv are our rights, our freedoms,
and our rightful (and evolutionarily or-
dained) dominion over this planet. The
victor we are to surrender those things
to is not the animal kingdom, which
has no concept of surrender and no use
for ours, but the squalid little nihilists
of PETA, and their counterparts in
similar movements and in governments
the world over. Now that amounts to a
war. It s no wonder that PETA would
lie to distract our attention away from
it.
Whenever someone declares “war”
on animals or the inanimate, what is
actually declared between the lines is a
war on human beings. Without excep-
tion. The “war on drugs” is a war on
Americans who hold the Constitution
as sacred and their bodies as their own
property. “Drugs” are merely the ex-
cuse for that war. The “war on poverty”
is a war on the productive. Failures and
losers are the excuse for that war, and
the would-be beneficiaries of it. The
formative “war on crime” is a war on
those of us exercising freedoms which
can optionally be used for committing
crime. Criminals are merely the excuse
for it. A “war on guns”- — I’m only sur-
prised it hasn’t been declared yet — will
be a war on those of us who are able to
defend ourselves against the vermin
waging all these other wars against us.
Criminals are already the excuse for
that one.
Our ability to shoot back will be the
real reason for it.
Asking children to promise not to bring
guns to school or use them to settle disputes
is a bizarre response to the problem , an
abrogation of adult re-
sponsibility to control
and get rid of the guns.
Well-meaning people
must do better. The
National Rifle Asso-
ciation , far- right mi-
litias , gun
m a n u fa ctu re rs a n d
lobbyists smile at this
n aive cheer le a d i ng
fspf, sell and distribute
ever more handguns to
feed their bloody lobby-
ing coffers , and pro-
ceed with the killing
business as usual.
Thomas O. Swallen, letter to the edi-
tor, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Friday,
14 November 1997.
W e expect lies from the anti-
self-defense nihilists, and
this one managed ten of
them in only three sentences. That kind
of skill is not honed by accident.
f irst, there is nothing “bizarre”
about setting limits on children’s behav-
ior. The only way that could seem bi-
zarre is if Swallen is a very young or
very stupid child himself.
Second, it is not the setting of such
limits, but rather failing to set and en-
force them that constitutes an abroga-
tion of responsibility.
Third, that responsibility lies not
with “adults,” but with parents.
Fourth, not even parents have a re-
sponsibility to “control” guns in the
“gun -control” sense, but only to control
access and use of whatever guns they
own, or otherwise have within their
property.
Fifth, there is no such thing as a re-
sponsibility to get rid of guns.
Sixth, well-meaning people cannot
do better than to set rational limits on
their kids’ behavior, enforce those lim-
its, and control access to their own prop-
erty. There is simply nowhere “better”
to go.
Seventh, all known militias are
armed, but not all are “far-right.” Some
few are more libertarian than conser-
vative, and others are far left (since
“ N a zi ” s ti 1 1 m ea n s “ N a t i o n a 1 S o c i a li s t ” ) .
Eighth, there is nothing “naive”
about points one and six.
Ninth, the gun industry and pro-gun
groups never lobby for blood, or in it.
They lobbv either for their rights to
produce, sell, collect, modify and use
guns — and to thwart
those who shed
blood — or they
lobby for a compro
mise of those rights.
Tenth, those lob-
byists do not and
have not killed any
or threatened
Mr. S wallen’s
statements were
nothing but lies and
vague approxima-
tions uttered in a
string of verbiage
designed to not com-
municate information. They were de
signed merely to feel reasonable, an
appeal to the type of hominid who
reads for approximation rather than
comprehension. You weren’t expected
to examine them.
I lack the space to document the ap
proximations. But, quite literally, if you
strike out every word in those state-
ments that is a lie, a vague approxima-
tion, or that semantically acts in the
service of either, the result reads: “Sell
and distribute ever more handguns.”
Why, thank you. I think I will.
bor many children , the school library is
their window on the world. They learn
about heroes, about options for what they
can be in the world. So, where did you learn
/ ndians are savages fin the school library.
Delaine Eastin, C A school superin
tendent, as quoted in USA Weekend,
27 March 1998. [This article claimed
school library books were outdated, be-
cause some said that “no one has yet
visited the moon” and others said “boys
fix things, girls need things fixed.”]
A “war on guns” —
I’m only surprised it
hasn’t been declared yet
— will be a war on
those of us who are able ll<H,v
to defend ourselves...
Our ability to shoot
back will be the real
reason for it.
28
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
T he lie here is more subtle, be-
cause vou are supposed to tell
it to yourself, under pain of (un-
earned) guilt if vou don’t, and then you
are supposed to deliver your children
for indoctrination in the same false-
hoods.
The lie is that Indians were not sav-
ages. on aren’t supposed to notice that
they epitomized the behavioral mean-
ing of the word. In the mind-mangling
universe of the child-indoctrinator,
there is no such concept as savagery. It
is to be obliterated without question.
You are forbidden to think it. And if
vou can’t think “savage,’’ on one end of
the scale, vou can’t think “civilized” on
the other, because the two are linked by
virtue of being opposites on that same
scale. You are to throw the scale away,
and never measure anybody with it
again.
Whv? Because it you refuse to apply
the term “savage” to those who epito-
mized it in the past, you can be talked
out of applying it to those who epito-
mize it today. And then they can get
away with anything, free of all the con-
sequences which ought to be accorded
them. That is what they are trying to
teach vour children, and why. l ake a
wild stab at whether the savage or the
civilized interests are being sabotaged.
And take a wild stab at who is going to
pas for it. I ,ook around; its already be-
gun.
Here 's the picture in a nutshell. Your
planet is in serious trouble — from pollu-
tion , toxic waste and the loss of forest, farm-
land and fresh water... Your parents and
Grandparents have made a mess of look-
ing after the earth. 7 hey may deny it, but
they're little more than thieves. And they're
stealing your future from under your noses.
Captain Leo, in a children’s book
about saving the environment. |The
story concerns a cartoon character who
comes f rom the soul of the earth to teach
children how to save the planet. |
T he above is the end result of
practicing wh a t J o n a th a n A 1 te r
preached at the start of this col-
umn.
This planet is not in trouble of any
kind, as anv serious scientist or five
minutes of honest thought will tell vou.
Looking after the entire planet is not
anybody’s responsibility, but looking
after one’s children is. Today’s parents
and grandparents didn’t make a mess
of the earth. But they did make a mess
of this culture, as reflected particularly
in what they permit their children to be
taught in what are euphemistically
called “schools.”
You cannot become a “thief ”bv steal-
ing what already belongs to vou. Noth-
ing belongs to children that wasn’t
explicitly given or permitted to them
by an adult in the first
place. And the only
things being destroyed
which those children
will grow up to need
arc their freedom and
the industrial capacity
to keep them and their
own children fed, ' 1
clothed, housed and armed.
Now, in the years I’ve been writing
this column, “Captain Leo” is the low-
est piece of filth I have yet encountered.
It would take a very rare person of pure
focused evil to go behind adult backs to
say that to their children, even if the
things being said were true, if the stall
dard of assessing them was reason, and
if the goal of saying them was freedom.
But to do so when the things being said
are lies, the standard is nihilism, and
the goal is fascism — well, the reader
will have to devise his own description,
because I can’t rightly expect the editor
to print what I really want to say the
way 1 really want to say it.
But I can say this much: anybody
who tolerates Captain Leo deserves the
little Stasi informants, and future eco
commies, he is intended to create. Oh
yes they do. Lven though their children
deserve better.
Anybody who will not tolerate it, es-
pecially if you have children of the age
that book is geared toward, whatever
that age would be today (second grade?
fifth grade? college?) is hereby advised
to visit their children’s school. Tell them
that vou are concerned about the envi-
ronment (your children’s learning en-
vironment; but don’t tell them that right
away), and ask ifthey have Captain Leo
in their libraries, or use it in their
classes. If not, thank them, and tell them
why you asked. If they do, then vent
vour wrath, remove your children from
that school, and do whatever is within
your value system and your means to
educate vour own child. If your child
has been exposed to Captain Leo, try
to undo the brainwash the author of
that filth has deliberately and knowingly
inflicted upon your child’s mind.
Take a wild stab at
whether the savage or
the civilized interests
are being sabotaged.
Remember that any unspeakable
monster who would so blatantly and vi-
ciously lie to your children for so evil a
cause as “environmentalism” is utterly
unworthy of politeness and tolerance.
Remember that dehumanizing the en-
emy is appropriate when the enemy
proves himself subhuman bv his own
action. And remember that cowards
who lie to your chil-
dren about you behind
vour back are only
slightly less subhuman
than those who rape or
kill them. This includes
any “teachers” or
school board
" apparatchik who did
not author the lies, but who knowingly
infect vour children with them in order
to turn them against vou. Do what your
beliefs allow vou to. (Mv own beliefs
set no limits on what to do to the en-
emy in extreme cases like this).
And remember; vou did not destroy
your children’s future. Bur Captain Leo
and his pushers will. I heir future and
yours. That is the explicit purpose of
the character and of the lies he tells chil-
d ren
Vol. IV, No. 3
29
The RESISTER
COMMENTARIES
FROM READERS
PERMANENT PMS
K.J
by
. Miller
Lie, Deny, Make Counter
Accusations
L ast summer, the American car-
rier USS Abraham Lincoln re-
turned to home port. Of the
eight female pilots assigned to Air
Wing 1 1, one was killed, three were
subjected to Field Naval Aviator Evalu-
ation Boards and grounded due to sub-
standard performance, and a fifth left
carrier aviation after a dangerous land-
ing.
Due partly to a race to beat the Air
Force with the first women in combat
aviation, the Navy instead won an un-
intended and tragic distinction when
Lieutenant Kara I lultgreen stalled her
1-14 on approach, inverted the aircraft
then ejected head-first into the ocean.
Initial Navy spin blamed the 1 994 fatal
crash on engine failure, but subsequent
official investigations revealed pilot er-
ror.
An InspectorGeneral’s report docu-
ments unprecedented training conces-
sions extended to I T 1 lultgreen and the
other female pilots to insure rapid gen-
der integration. Seven months after
1 1 ultgreen flew her F- 1 4 into the ocean,
LT Cary Lohrenz was removed from
flight status due to similar performance
difficulties. In a lame attempt to liti-
gate respect, the Tomcat driver soon
filed a lawsuit against the Navy charg-
ing she had been unfairly discriminated
against.
Permeating the carrier environment
are hazards such as jet fuel, high deci-
bel noise, extreme vibration, and toxic
fumes. To avoid potential birth defects
and lawsuits, the Lincolns command-
ing officer ordered pregnancy tests
prior to transfer to sea duty. I n fact, preg-
nant servicewomen are constrained by
law from flying ejection seat aircraft,
high performance aircraft (2gs or more),
aircraft involved in shipboard opera-
tions, or those flying 10,000 feet with-
out extra oxygen. The _ _ _
Captain’s order was
met with outright de-
fiance, with one officer
drafting a letter to her
congressman, and an-
other calling the
Navy’s complaint
hotline. Snarled LT
Lohrenz; “l wouldn’t
he dumb enough to be
out on a carrier drink-
ing J P-5 [ jet fuel]
floating in my
KoolAid and having a
kid. And here he trusts
me to fly his jet and yet
he doesn’t trust me to hatch my own
baby.”
No evaluator dared
use the word “bitchy”
or “whiny,” but Land-
ing Signal Officers
reported female pi-
lots were often more
defensive or argu-
mentative than the
men when debriefed.
Lemming-
w
Lemming- Down the Military
hile pondering the relative
difference between a preg-
nancy test and the required
drug test for all Naval aviators, note that
the carrier air group commander was
accused of u paternalism” for admonish-
ing male officers not to use foul lan-
guage in the presence of women. Of
course, had he allowed the usual earthy
banter, he would have been accused of
“tolerating a hostile work environment”
faster than your attorney can say
“Tailhook.”
No evaluator dared use the word
“bitchy” or “whiny,” but Landing Sig-
nal Officers reported female pilots were
often more defensive or argumentative
than the men when debriefed. Added
the Inspector General’s report: “The
LSOs were used to seeing men curse,
throw objects, and kick things when
they performed poorly. But they didn’t
know how to deal with crying.” Due to
fears over charges of sexual harassment,
debriefs done in private were consid-
ered, then rejected.
The consistent monitoring by po-
litical commissars has affected the in-
fantry as well. Sexual misconduct is
supposedly wrong, but the Armv’s preg-
nancy policy provides generous benefits
to unmarried servicewomen. Co-ed
field tents are common in Bosnia, and
pregnancy requiring evacuation occurs
every three days there.
The Amazon myth notwithstand-
ing, the Army Research Institute reveals
that 45% of female Marines can not
throw a live hand grenade safely beyond
the 15 meter bursting radius. By sim-
_ ply redefining success
through gender-
norming the criteria
for achievement how-
ever, proficiency tests
become much less de-
manding.
Many have criti-
cized that due to un-
p recede n te d p ol i t i c a 1
rules ol engagement,
American forces
fought the Vietnam
War with hands tied
behind their backs.
The present
“ u n g e n d e re d vision,”
with its abandonment of rationality,
standards, and differences, puts reason
in retreat by compelling military lead-
ers to confront a domestic philosophi-
cal enemy with their brains tied behind
their backs.
Physical, sexual, and cultural differ-
ences do separate women from men.
Ignoring this reality in the civilian work-
place might make for an interesting
social ‘science’ experiment. In the mili-
tary, however, it costs lives and does the
Republic a severe disservice in pre-
paredness. “GI Jane” is increasingly a
dangerous liability.
30
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
ELDRIDGE
CLEAVER
Another Useless Mouth
by
Dr. Susan L.M. Huck
H ow do you become listed by
the World Book Encyclope-
dia (a set pitched at the pub-
lic-school level, so you know where “re-
search papers” come from) as one of
the towering figures of “The African
American Journey”? By spending the
first half of your life as a criminal rapist
and rahble-rouser, and the second half
of your life avoiding work.
So endeth the days of Eldridge
Cleaver, who died of something they
would rather not mention. (Rather than
AIDS, my guess would be an overdose.)
Born in Arkansas in 1935, Cleaver be-
gan his criminal career as a teenager in
California. In 1957 he was convicted
of assault with intent to murder, and
was locked up from 1958 to 1966.
While in prison, CNN reported, this
profound thinker “wrote a powerful set
of essays outlining his views on racial
issues and revolutionary violence.... In
one essay, Cleaver described his rape
of white women as “an insurrectionary
act. It delighted me that I was defying
and trampling upon the white mans
law... and that I was defiling his women.”
If you wrap rape in politically-cor-
rect rhetoric, white liberals will swoon
and give you fat book contracts.
Cleaver’s Soul on Ice , expressing the
above profound thought, was aggres-
sively merchandised by the big book-
store chains and pushed as required
reading in liberal high schools, colleges,
and universities. By 1970, this method
had “sold” 1 ,400,000 copies of Cleaver’s
screed.
Eresh out of prison, Cleaver “helped
to found” the Black Panthers. As the
reader may imagine, the Panthers are
described as well-meaning souls caring
for the poor, rather than dope-dealing
thugs not averse to murder. They con-
ducted an armed assault on the Cali-
fornia state legislature, an episode
which tends to go unmentioned by lib-
erals, lest it inspire others.
The World Book would rather
airbrush Cleaver by announcing that in
1968, “Cleaver ran as
the United States
presidential candidate
of the Peace and Free-
dom Party.” This was
a well-known Com-
munist front, but you
will not discover that
from any liberal “ref-
erence work.” The
World Book daintily
mentions that “he be-
came involved in a
shooting incident.”
The Salt LakeTribune
was more forthcom-
ing; “After a 1968 shootout with Cali-
fornia police, Cleaver was wounded and
another Panther died.” So, with the aid
his Peace-and-Freedom friends, he
skipped to Algeria and made the grand
tour of Cuba, China, and North Viet-
nam. Since American liberals realized
that he needed even more money than
his royalties, McGraw-Hill publishers
offered a $350,000 advance for more
of his philosophical musings.
Having sampled the joys of Com-
munist life, Cleaver wheedled his way
back into the United States in 1975,
claiming to have had a “religious con-
version.” Another book. Soul on Fire
(1978) did not receive anything like the
attention of his titillating first. More
arrests, more parole violations. Em-
ployment seems to have consisted of
speaking before conservative groups,
claiming to have seen the light. I le tried
fundamentalism, he tried Mormonism.
He was baptized by the Mormons in
1983.
By 1986, Cleaver “sought the Re-
publican nomination to the United
States Senate from California” (World
Book), but evidently cooler heads pre-
vailed. Cleaver claimed that his Mor-
mon campaign managers “stole
$350,000 in campaign contributions.”
(There oughta be a law!)
Another episode curiously omitted
from pages of media praise was his ven-
ture into fashion design. How about
trousers with codpieces — call 'em
“cleavers.” You know — if you’re a rap-
ist and ya got it, flaunt it.
Cleaver’s college speaking gigs of-
ten left a wake of disappointed blacks,
some of whom com-
plained that they had
been “ripped off” by
not hearing the old
Panther fire and brim-
stone.
Cleaver’s last re-
ported ideological
stop was, would you
believe feminism? In
1995 he stated “I am
now working with a
group of people who
are working (how
they love to pretend to
be “working”!) to en-
ter the next millenium in a new way —
by electing a woman president. The
thing I keep pushing is that she be a
mother. We’ve got to do something
drastic because this old-boy network is
killing us.”
We’ll miss Eldridge, won’t we?
So endeth the days
of Eldridge Cleaver,
who died of some-
thing they would
rather not mention.
(Rather than AIDS,
my guess would be an
overdose.)
Vol. IV, No. 3
31
The RESISTER
Intelligence is a simple and self-evident
thing. As an activity it is the pursuit of a
certain kind of knowledge; as a phenom-
enon it is the resultant knowledge.
Sherman Kent
Periodic
The line of demarcation between friend
and foe. ..passes a nonphysical , often
ideological boundary , which must however
be expressly delineated if we want to reach
M the adversary and to defeat him.
RogerTrinquier
ce Report
MISSING
AM ERICAN PO Ws
What Happened?
by
Joseph D. Douglass Jr.
© 1994byJ.D. Douglass Jr.
During the Korean and Viet Nam “wars” captured American soldiers were abandoned
to their fate by the ruling elite (who consider us peasants anyway) and their Starred
Toadies who were too concerned about making their next star to give a damn about the
fate of their men. When next you read or hear a Starred Mouthpiece coo about Americas
“Partnership for Peace” with the Soviets, or “detente” with the Chinese, or
“understanding” with the North Koreans, or “normal relations” with the Vietnamese,
keep Mr. Douglass’ article in mind. Then ask yourself: “The chain of command demands
our trust — based on what precedent ?” [SMB]
The single most basic principle of
personal honor in A mericas armed forces is
never willingly to leave a fellow serviceman
behind . . . Something very real happened to
each of those brave men , and our country
will not be at peace with itself until we are
morally certain we have done all we could to
find out what.
Report of the U.S. Senate Select
Committee on POW/MIA Affairs,
January 25, 1993
O ver the past four years, the ef-
forts of many years work by
families and friends of miss-
ing American POWs has begun to bear
fruit. Numerous researchers have
combed the files and isolated critical
and revealing information. Two Senate
committees have helped declassify in-
formation and focus yet additional at-
tention on the problem. Individuals
with special knowledge have come for-
ward and shared that knowledge. While
much more work remains, the conclu-
sions that have begun to emerge make
the search now even more real and ur-
gent than ever before.
We now know, without question,
that Americans, both military and non-
military, were left be-
hind following World
War II, the Korean
War, and the Vietnam
War. Hundreds were
abandoned in Viet-
nam and Laos, thou-
sands in North Korea,
and tens of thousands
in Russia following
World War II.
In each case, there
was clear knowledge
that American men
were being left behind. However, for
reasons of “political expediency,” U.S.
government officials at the highest level
chose to ignore these men and deliber-
ately misrepresent the situation to the
American public.
It also increasingly appears that, in
direct and known violation of interna-
tional law, hundreds of American
POW/MIAs were moved from Korea
| and later Vietnam/Laos to other Com-
munist countries; specifically, to the
Soviet Union and China.
Subsequent efforts of our govern-
ment to learn what happened to miss-
ing American servicemen have been
and still are dominated by duplicity and
incompetence and by efforts to hide or
sabotage information and stonewall ef-
forts to obtain information that con-
firms the abandonment of American
servicemen and the possibility that
some are still alive.
There have been a steady progres-
sion of live sightings of American
POW/MIAs in Southeast Asia since
1973 and continuing up to the present.
Unfortunately, U.S. intelligence efforts
to pursue this and related data can
hardly be called serious; rather they
have been characterized as naive, gross
negligence, and criminal neglect.
Beginning three years ago, a strange
set of circumstances led the Conserva-
tive Research Center to begin its own
investigation into the POW/MIA
problem. Years ear-
lier, a member of our
staff had learned
about some special
experiments con-
ducted on American
POWs by Russian and
Czechoslovak mili-
tary intelligence doc-
tors during the Korean
War. When the
POW/MIA search
efforts gained public-
ity three years ago, the
potential significance of this informa-
tion surfaced and we decided to return
to the source of the information. What
the source had to say was shocking —
not only because of its clear relevance
to the POW/MIA search but addition-
ally because of efforts of elements
within the U.S. government to discredit
the source (without even knowing what
the source had to say) and to suppress
his information.
Hundreds were
abandoned in Viet-
nam and Laos, thou-
sands in North Korea,
and tens of thousands
in Russia following
World War II.
32
Vol. IV, No. 3
The source is Jan Sejna. General Ma-
jor Sejna was a high-ranking official in
the Communist Party of Czechoslova-
kia and the Czechoslovak Army prior
to his defection to the United States on
February 25, 1968. Among the posi-
tions he held were Chief of Staff to the
Minister of Defense; member of the
Ministers Kollegium; member of the
Central Committee, the National As-
sembly, and the Presidium; member of
the bureau at the Main Political Ad-
ministration; first secretary of the Party
at the Ministry of Defense; and secre-
tary of the Defense Council. Inciden-
tally, the Defense Council is the high-
est d eci s i o n - m a ki n g age n cy i n th e co m -
munist system in areas of intelligence,
counter-intelligence, national security,
deception, and the economy.
General Major Jan Sejna remains
the highest level communist official
ever to defect to the West, lie was a
member of the decision hierarchy with
unparalleled access to the most sensi-
tive defense and intelligence plans. 1 le
was there and in a position to know
what was happening. 1 1 is story is most
sobering.
Because of the clear importance of
this information to the POW/MJA
search and because of the proven value
and credibility of the source’s informa-
tion over the years 1 - — indeed, it seems
hardly likely that the Defense Intelli-
gence Agency 2 would have given him a
staff position, let alone kept him on
board and repeatedly sought his knowl-
edge and advice for over fifteen years
and continuing today, il he were not
trusted — we decided to bring this in-
formation to the public’s attention.
What Happened?
An Overview
D uring both the Korean and
Vietnam Wars, General
Sejna explained, the Soviet
Union, assisted by Czechoslovakia,
used American POWs as guinea pigs
in military medical intelligence experi-
ments. Experiments were run to deter-
mine the limits of physiological and
psychological stress the captive GIs
could endure. The Soviets justified these
tests to the Czech leadership on the
basis of their need to determine how
well the Americans could stand up to
the rigors of all-out war.
American and South Korean and
South Vietnamese POWs were ex-
posed to chemical warfare agents and
The RESISTER
biological warfare organisms to test
their susceptibility to the different
agents and organisms. The Soviets
wanted to learn if the American GIs
were any more, or less, vulnerable than
the Soviet soldiers to the experimental
agents they were developing. The Sovi-
ets also wanted to know if there were
any differences be- — -
tween the races —
black, white, 1 lispanic
and Asian — in their
biochemical vulner-
ability to the agents.
The captive GIs
were also used as sub-
jects in testing the ef-
fectiveness of military
intelligence drugs, in-
cluding a wide variety —
of mind-control and behavior-modifi-
cation drugs, which, incidentally, were
used during the Korean War to cause
American servicemen to speak out on
the evils of capitalism and on the ben-
efits of communism.
The Soviets exposed GIs to atomic
detonations to determine how much
atomic radiation was needed to kill or
incapacitate a man. Lethal doses were
administered and then the GIs were
watched to determine how long soldiers
could function and to learn if there were
any drugs that could be used to prolong
their ability to perform military tasks
before permanently succumbing to the
radiation. Tests to determine the long-
term consequences of sub-lethal dose
levels also were run.
Experiments were conducted in
military hospitals in North Korea dur-
ing the Korean War and in military
hospitals in Laos and North Vietnam
during the Vietnam War. American
POWs were also moved to the Soviet
Union for experimental purposes from
North Korea following the end of the
Korean War and from Laos and North
Vietnam during the Vietnam War.
Finally, autopsies were performed
on the servicemen who did not survive
the experiments to determine ethnic
differences in biochemical makeup and
to verify the effects of different drugs
and biological organisms on the body,
the heart and brain in particular.
Korea:
The Operation Begins
C zechoslovakia’s participation
in the Soviet medical intelli-
gence operation began early in
cal and psychological
stress the captive GIs
could endure.
the Korean War, when it was directed
by the Soviets to build an experimental
hospital in North Korea. The plans were
drawn up by the Military Project Insti-
tute, which was part of the Construc-
tion Administration of the Czech Min-
istry of Defense (MoD). I his Admin-
istration also contained a special depart -
■ — ■ ment that was respon-
sible for secret
Experiments were projects, especially
run to determine the tlu>sc,n t()re, K ncoun '
tries, and that man-
limits of physiologi- aged the construction
of the hospital. 1
Ostensibly, the
hospital was built to
test new medical pro-
cedures for treating
1 " military casualties and
for training young military doctors.
That was its cover; but not its sole mis-
sion. It also served as a special, liighly-
secure medical intelligence facility in
which captured American and South
Korean servicemen were used as guinea
pigs in the types of medical experiments
previously enumerated. I he Czechs
also built a crematorium in North Ko-
rea to dispose of the remains of those
GIs who did not survive the experi-
ments. What happened to the soldiers
who did survive the experimental pro-
cedures for treating military wounds is
not known. I lowever, in light of the sen-
sitive nature of the facility, it is doubt-
ful that any were ever returned to the
regular POVV compounds, nor did
Sejna recall am report or discussion
that suggested that any of those ( i I pa-
tients were ever returned to the North
Koreans. 4
Lhe overall operation in North Ko-
rea came under the authority of the
Czech General Staff deputy director of
military intelligence for strategic intel-
ligence, Colonel Rudolf Bahka. Bahka
was a hard-line Stalinist who had been
brought in to replace a bourgeois gen-
eral. Col. Bahka was sent to North Ko-
rea under diplomatic cover as an offi-
cial of the foreign ministry, which was
only a deception. After the war, he was
promoted to head of the General Staff
Foreign Administration, which had
both an overt and covert function.
Overtly, the foreign Administration
negotiated foreign military assistance
with various defense attaches. Covertly,
it was a military intelligence front used
to manage special clandestine overseas
operations.
Vol. IV, No. 3
33
The RESISTER
The experimental Czech hospital in
North Korea was designed to handle
two hundred “patients. ”In actuality, the
hospital was often overcrowded. One
year, six hundred patients were treated.
At times the hospital was so crowded
that two patients were required to share
one hed. The individual who actually
ran the hospital was Colonel Professor
Dr. Dufek. Dr. Dufek, a former Soviet"
citizen who had emigrated to Czecho-
slovakia, was a heart specialist in charge
of research at the Czech Central Mili-
tary Hospital in Prague/’ Sejna dis-
cussed the operation with both Col.
Babka and Dr. Dufek, and was present
when they briefed the Minister of
Defense’s Kollegium' on the hospital
and its operation.
Roughly eighteen Czech doctors
were involved in the North Korean op-
eration, and over twenty Russian doc-
tors. In preparation for their assign-
ment, several of the Czech doctors were
given special training in atomic radia-
tion and its effects on the human body
at the Institute for Nuclear Medicine
in M oscow. These were the doctors who
conducted the radiation experiments in
North Korea. Each of them was re-
quired to sign a statement saying that
they volunteered for this assignment.
For these experiments, radio-isotopes
were brought to North Korea from the
Soviet Union for use in radiating the
GIs.
Experiments Following the
Korean War
I n 1954, after the Korean War ar-
mistice was in effect, the Soviets
decided to terminate the operation
and turn the hospital over to the North
Koreans. This decision was made by the
Soviet Defense Council and then coor-
dinated with the Czech Defense Coun-
cil/ As indicated earlier, the Defense
Council was the critical organization
where issues in matters of intelligence,
counter-intelligence, defense and stra-
tegic aspects of foreign and economic
policy were decided. ' Phis Council was
composed of a very select collection of
the six most powerful strategic lead-
ers. 10
As part of this decision to terminate
operations at the hospital in North
Korea, the POWs who were of no fur-
ther use — that is, those whose mental
or physical impairment had signifi-
cantly diminished their utility as good
medical subjects — were killed and their
remains cremated. Those who were
being used in experiments that were not
completed or who were still of experi-
mental value — roughly one hundred
GIs — were shipped to the Soviet
Union where the experimental work
was to continue. For example, one of
the experiments to he continued would
determine the long-term effects of sub-
lethal doses of atomic radiation. To the
Soviets, “long-term” usually meant sev-
eral decades; fifty years was typical. In
the case of sub-lethal radiation effects,
the Soviet interest included effects of
radiation on the soldiers’ reproductive
organs and on their subsequent chil-
dren and grandchildren.
The POWs were
shipped to the Soviet
Union by air in four
roughly-equiv a lent
plane loads. 11 They
first stopped in
Prague, where the GIs
were given medical
exams before being
sent on to various ex-
perimental medical
test facilities in the
Soviet Union. The
stopover typically
lasted about a week. Its purpose was
security — to “break the trail,” so that
the Soviets could subsequently deny any
claims that POWs were shipped to the
USSR, from North Korea. That is also
why the experimental hospital was a
“Czech” hospital. These deceptions
were all part of a carefully designed plan
to mask the movement of GIs to the
Soviet Union and to mislead people,
including most of the Czech and Soviet
participants, about what was really hap-
pening. 12
In May 1956, Sejna was appointed
Chief of Staff for the Minister of De-
fense. Shortly after he received this ap-
pointment, General Major Kalashnik
from the Soviet Main Political Admin-
istration came to Prague to discuss the
importance of non-military weapons.
Sejna was present at the meeting when
Kalashnik discussed five important ex-
amples of such weapons: ideological of-
fensive, which meant good deception
and propaganda; good foreign policy
designed to split the West; isolating the
United States; economic and social
chaos; and a new view about drugs and
other chemicals that can affect the minds
and behavior of millions of people.
Kalashnik’s visit and lecture served as a
...those whose
mental or physical
impairment had sig-
nificantly diminished
their utility as good
medical subjects —
were killed...
precursor for a Soviet request for the
Czechs to provide medical support for
the experiments that were being run in
the Soviet Union on the American
POWs. Kalashnik’s mission was to ex-
plain the importance of this research
and justify the need for Czech partici-
pation.
After General Kalashnik returned to
Moscow, the formal request for medi-
cal assistance in the experiments came
into the Czech Ministry of Defense
from the Soviet Defense Council. The
Czech decision in response was pre-
pared by Sejna, working with Minister
of Defense General Fomsky and un-
der the guidance of the ever-present
_ - _ iiiii _ <i __ - Soviet MoD Advi-
sor/^ The medical as-
pects of the plan and
preliminary staffing
reco m m e n d a tion s
were prepared by five
specially-cleared offic-
ers at the Health Ad-
ministration of the
MoD’s Rear Services
Administration.
In assembling the
overall plan for pre-
1 sentation to the Czech
Defense Council, Sejna personally re-
viewed the files and decision docu-
ments for the operation in North Ko-
rea, including the original Soviet De-
fense Council instructions that initiated
the operation and those that terminated
it. It was in the originating Soviet De-
fense Council order where the direc-
tion to conduct the operation so that
“no one ever would know about it” was
set forth. Sejna’s review of this historv
was included as part of the plan.
When the Czech plan was com-
pleted, it went to Moscow for review
and approval. The head of the Soviet
military Health Administration per-
sonally brought the plan back to Prague.
The only problem he had with the plan
was its timetable. I le wanted the pro-
cess of selecting and clearing the doc-
tors accelerated. All the doctors had to
be specially cleared by both Czech and
Soviet military counter-intelligence.
The Czechs had wanted to avoid draw-
ing any undue attention to the process
for security reasons and, thus, avoided
using any emergency measures to speed
up the process. The Soviet official came
to Prague to help them accelerate the
process without employing any observ-
able emergency measures. He came per-
j
34
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
sonally because in very sensitive opera-
tions, such as was this one, telephone
communications were not allowed. 14
After the plan had received the So-
viet blessing, it was placed on the De-
fense Council’s agenda, which Sejna
prepared as working secretary, for dis-
cussion and decision. The Council re-
viewed the Soviet request that had ini-
tiated the action, the seven projects the
Czech military doctors and scientists
would be working on, the administra-
tive and security measures, and then
approved the plan and the money for
the project.
Once the plan was approved, the
personnel selection process — mainly to
select the doctors and scientists who
would be involved — commenced. The
task was one principally of the Czech
military Health Administration, as-
sisted by the Administrative Organs
Department, which was the powerful
Central Committee department that
had authority over the Ministry of De-
fense (MoD) and Ministry of Interior
(Mol). Both Soviet and Czech military
i n tc 1 1 igen ce a n d m i 1 i ta ry cou n ter- i n tel -
ligence were involved. Military intelli-
gence had overall authority and mili-
tary counter-intelligence, which was a
component of the Interior Ministry,
was responsible for security.
When the doctors and scientists had
been selected and cleared, the list was
submitted to the head of the Soviet
military Health Administration, who
was the individual personally respon-
sible for the medical aspects of the plan.
Following his approval, the list was sent
to the Czech Defense Council for the
final decision, which by this time was
mainly a rubber-stamp approval.
Roughly fifteen doctors and scientists
were approved. The doctors came from
the Central Military I lospital, the Col-
lege for Military Doctors, and the Air
Force Scientific Research Institute at
Hradack Kralove where many of the
experimental drugs had been devel-
oped. I he scientists were from the
Academy of Sciences.
The operation was top secret. Aside
from the Defense Council and the doc-
tors who were involved, very few people
had access to the operation or knew
what it was really about. Specifically, the
only ones who knew were the Chief of
the General Staff, Chief of Rear Ser-
vices, 1 " and the heads of the Health
Administration, 16 Central Military
1 lospital, and Air Force Scientific Re-
search Center. The doctors went as a
group to the Institute for Nuclear Medi-
cine in Moscow. The doctor in charge
was the head of the Air Force Science
Institute. They were accompanied by a
military counter-intelligence officer.
Once in Moscow, they split into three
groups. One stayed
in Moscow at the In-
stitute and the other
two groups went to
two different loca-
tions.
The Institute for
Nuclear Medicine
was the jumping-off
point because of the
political plan (that is,
deception) that had
been devised as a
cover. The cover story
maintained that the
doctors had gone to
Moscow as students
to study the effects of
nuclear war on sol-
diers. Everything was
p repa red for thei r cou rses — i ns tru c to rs ,
organization materials, schedules, and
so forth. But it was all a fake, designed
to mislead people about the real reason
behind the doctor’s mission, which was
to investigate the effects of chemical
warfare agents and drugs, biological or-
ganisms, and nuclear radiation on the
captive G Is.
The results of the experiments per-
formed on the captive GIs were pre-
sented during the annual review of the
intelligence plan for the next year and
in special, highly-classified reports.
These reports discussed the improve-
ments in chemical and biological war-
fare capabilities and knowledge of ra-
diation casualties that had been
achieved in the experiments. Sejna re-
calls one report on the tests that he read
in 1959 or 1960. The tests were dis-
cussed in three categories: chemical
warfare, biological warfare (including
viruses), and radiation.
One of the discussions in the chemi-
cal warfare section was focused on the
side effects of some of the drugs. I n the
drug research programs, for each drug
under development, there was a paral-
lel program to develop drugs that would
reverse the effect (antidotes) and drugs
that could defend people against the use
of such drugs (prophylaxes). One of the
more difficult problems in this search
was caused by side-effects of the experi-
mental drugs. The side-effects were of-
ten irreversible and, in many cases, se-
riously debilitating. Where the prison-
ers were judged to be of no future value
because of the side-effects, they were
killed. Only a few were retained to see
if ultimately the side-effects would dis-
appear. Sejna sus-
pects those few were
placed in mental in-
stitutions for long-
term (that is, twenty
to fifty years) obser-
vation.
In the radiation
section, casualty ex-
posure levels were
discussed along with
the results of the
search for drugs that
would, in effect, en-
able soldiers to con-
tinue fighting even
after having received
lethal radiation expo-
sures. With the cap-
tive G Is in the Soviet
Union, these tests were not limited to
the use of radioisotopes. The Soviets
also used the atomic reactor at the In-
stitute for Nuclear Medicine in Mos-
cow to radiate the G Is.
Still further, the best and most rel-
evant information was obtained by se-
curing G Is at spaced intervals along the
ground and then subjecting them to the
full force and fury of actual atomic
bomb explosions at Soviet atomic test
ranges. In addition to their interest in
radiation exposure, the Soviets also
tested the effects of atomic bomb over
pressure and thermal radiation on the
GIs and the psychological effects of all
three — over pressure, atomic, and ther-
mal radiation — on the GIs. Based on
the data thus obtained, the Soviets de-
cided that the exposure level above
which it became difficult for soldiers to
function as a result of physical and psy-
chological problems was 100 rem
(roentgen equivalent man). The Sovi-
ets then exposed the GIs to radiation
levels of 100 rem and higher and then
tested the effects of different drugs on
the surviving GIs, to learn if some of
the radiation effects could be tempo-
rarily countered with drugs, thus ex-
tending the useful life of the soldiers,
and to observe how long the soldiers
who were exposed at the higher levels
could survive. 1 '
...the best and most
relevant information
was obtained by secur-
ing GIs at spaced in-
tervals along the
ground and then sub-
jecting them to the full
force and fury of actual
atomic bomb explo-
sions at Soviet atomic
test ranges.
Vol. IV, No. 3
35
The RESISTER
Vietnam War:
Setting the Stage
A merican POWs also were used
for medical experiments by the
Soviets and Czechs during the
Vietnam War. The cornerstone for this
activity was laid in 1960 when the North
Vietnamese Chief of the General Staff
(CoGS) and roughlvten senior officers
visited Prague and Moscow in search
of military assistance. The North Viet-
namese believed that the only way to
unify the country was through military
action. They wanted military assistance
to prepare them for a major offensive
drive to capture South Vietnam. This
was when the Soviets first agreed to
supply the North Vietnamese with
weapons. As head of the Defense
Council secretariat, Sejna was their host
and focal point for scheduling meetings
and discussions.
During this visit, there was one par-
ticularly sensitive meeting. The only
participants were the Vietnamese
CoGS; his Czech counterpart, General
Otakar Rytir; Czech Minister of De-
fense General Uomsky; Soviet Advi-
sor General Aleksandr Kuschev; and
then-Colonel Jan Sejna. In this meet-
ing, General Kuschev, explained to the
Vietnamese general how American
POWs had been used for medical re-
search during the Korean War and how
valuable this use had been. One of the
items of cooperation the Soviets would
like to receive in return for providing
military technology, Kuschev contin-
ued, was more American POWs for
medical experimentation. The Viet-
namese CoGS agreed and used the op-
portunity to press for even more mili-
tary assistance. Kuschev then stressed
the need to begin organizing immedi-
ately to use the captured American ser-
vicemen to avoid the types of delays
encountered at the beginning of the
Korean War.
The North Vietnamese general sug-
gested that it would be a good idea to
keep any Americans who were captured
and selected to be sent to the Soviet
Union separate from other POWs.
General Kuschev agreed and the deci-
sion was made: Soviet, Czech, and Viet-
namese military counter-intelligence
officers would meet and draw up plans
for the secure management of Ameri-
can POWs who were to be sent to the
Soviet Union from the instant of their
capture until they were deposited in the
Soviet Union. Military counter-intel-
ligence had the lead because it was re-
sponsible for security in the military.
In the communist system, military
counter-intelligence was generally a
component of the Ministry of Interior,
and as such was located outside the
military system. In the Soviet Union, it
was a component of the KGB. In
Czechoslovakia, it was in the Ministry
of Interior, which also was where civil-
ian intelligence was located. As was
typical in the communist system, ev-
eryone watched every-
one else.
Work on the plan
commenced immedi-
ately following the re-
turn of the Vietnam-
ese CoGS to Hanoi.
In Czechoslovakia,
CoGS General Rytir
was personally re-
sponsible for the ef-
fort. In the Soviet
Union, that person
was Marshal Matvey
V. Zakharov, the So-
vietCoGS. In Czecho-
slovakia, the officials under the CoGS
who were responsible for specific areas
were the first deputy to the Minister of
Interior, ,<s the head of military counter-
intelligence, vt the chief of military in-
telligence, 20 and his deputy for strategic
intelligence. 21 Similar officials from
North Vietnam participated in the
project.
The plan was completed in approxi-
mately six months, at which time
Czechoslovakia received that portion
of the plan which pertained to the Czech
part of the operation. As set forth in
the plan, the overall operation was the
responsibility of Soviet military intel-
ligence, or GRU. The individual in
charge was the special deputy to the
Chief of the GRU in charge of strategic
intelligence. Similarly, in Czechoslova-
kia the plan was organized under the
deputy chief of military intelligence for
strategic intelligence, just as it had been
in the Korean War. 22 Security was pro-
vided bv military counter-intelligence. 21
The security plan specified that the
decision on which POWs were to be
used for medical experimentation
would be made as soon as they were
captured. This process was initiated by
a Soviet request in which they would
identify the number of specimens de-
sired. They also would specify race re-
quirements and rank. In the latter case,
the Soviets were interested in older of-
ficers as well as younger officers because
they wanted to test the effects of mind-
control drugs on people from different
age and rank categories. The older of-
ficers were generally regarded as the
more “reactionary” and, as such, espe-
cially important subjects to test. Based
on Soviet “requirements,” the North
Vietnamese military counter-intelli-
gence would go into action and begin
collecting appropriate new American
POWs as candidates.
The potential can-
didates would be iso-
lated from all other
prisoners. As will be
seen, at this point, the
POW had received a
one-way ticket to
oblivion or to death.
The next action was a
joint Soviet-North
Vietnamese psycho-
logical debriefing of
the potential candi-
date to determine
whether the candidate
was the type of individual who might
make trouble. If the POW was consid-
ered psychologically dangerous, then he
was to be immediately liquidated. 1 le
was not to be placed in normal POWs
compounds because that would risk
security of the experimental program;
better to simply kill him. 24
The plan also set forth the security
measures for storage and transporta-
tion of the approved POWs, specified
the clearances that were required for all
personnel who would be working on
the project (for example, guards, driv-
ers, pilots, doctors, and so forth), de-
scribed in detail the procedures for
medical exams for prisoners en route
to the Soviet Union (these were per-
formed in Prague), and listed the names
and ranks of all military intelligence
and counter-intelligence officers who
were cleared to work on the project.
One of the initial products of the plan
by decision of the Defense Council was
the establishment of a special MoD-
Mol commission. Its purpose was to
coordinate the various questions that
different agencies wanted directed to
the POWs and to issue integrated di-
rections to military intelligence and
counter-intelligence interrogators. The
CoGS General Rytir headed the com-
mission. 2 ^ The interrogation instruc-
tions were split into two different com-
The potential can-
didates would be iso-
lated from all other
prisoners.... at this
point, the POW had
received a one-way
ticket to oblivion or
to death.
36
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
ponents — one for normal POWs and
one for those POWs who had been se-
lected for medical experimentation.
Other countries, such as East Germany,
were also involved in interrogations.
This coordination was handled by the
Soviets.
The pilot plan was placed in opera-
tion in 1961. The first Soviet request
was for specimens of any age or race.
The Soviets had run out of test speci-
mens and wanted new ones so that they
could resume their experiments as soon
as possible. The first shipment of
American POWs 26 25 occurred in Au-
gust. It created an emergency situation
because there was almost no advanced
notice. The Czechs did not learn about
the shipment until the plane carrying
the POWs was in the air and headed
toward Prague. At about 1:00 in the
afternoon, the Soviet Advisor General
Kuschev brought a cable to Minister
I ,omsky, who immediately summoned
Sejna to his office. As soon as Sejna ar-
rived, Lomsky called President
Novotny and told him that Sejna was
headed over with an important cable.
Sejna delivered the cable to Novotny
and then proceeded to organize the
quarters for the POWs and the North
Vietnamese and Soviets who were ac-
companying the shipment. The POWs
arrived at 3:00 p.m. the following day.
Included in this shipment were, as
Sejna recalls, about four or five South
Vietnamese, who were housed in the
villa close to the castle, six or seven
Americans, who were housed in the
military intelligence villa on Sluna
street, and one American, about 42 or
43 years old who was isolated from the
other Americans and housed in the villa
at Rusveltova #1. This was a quick in
and out operation that lasted only two
days. The plane waited at the military
air base until the POWs had been ex-
amined and then flew them to the So-
viet Union. This shipment was differ-
ent from subsequent respects because
of the South Vietnamese and the rela-
tively large number of older Americans.
This was the only time that Sejna re-
calls when South Vietnamese POWs
were sent through Czechoslovakia to
the Soviet Union. With respect to the
American POWs, the Soviets were
somewhat displeased with the shipment
because there were too many older men.
Their preference at that time was for
the younger men.
| According to the U.S. government,
the first American POW was not cap-
tured until August 1964. This is more
word games by U.S. officials, because
this official position on the first POW
deliberately ignores the civilians, CIA
officers, and Special Forces advisors in
Southeast Asia who were lost. The U.S.
government policy is
clearly revealed in the
book President
Kennedy: Profiles in
Power by Richard
Reeves. Military pi-
lots were being re-
cruited for service in
Southeast Asia in
1961. They were asked
to read and sign a
statement whereby
they acknowledged
that they would he
wearing civilian
clothes and that their
“government would
disclaim anv knowl-
edge” of them if they
were captured.]
This first shipment
of POWs was accom-
panied by the Viet-
namese deputy chief
of the General Staff for
military intelligence,
General Major Quong. 2 ' lie was ac-
companied by two staff officers and
KGB (military counter-intelligence)
escorts. This group went along with the
POWs to make certain the operation
was secure, and to quickly resolve any
problems that might emerge on this
maiden voyage. Sejna hosted the en-
tourage. I he North Vietnamese were
housed at a special villa that was main-
tained by the Defense Council secre-
tariat^ for use of foreign dignitaries.
The Soviet escorts stayed with their
plane, evidently standing guard over
other sensitive cargo that was being
transported from North Vietnam to the
Soviet Union. As soon as the POWs
were processed, about two days, they
were put back on the plane and whisked
away to Russia. As Sejna recalls, the
North Vietnamese stayed for five
working days. He attended one meet-
ing with M inister Lomsky that was held
in Lomsky s office. Lomsky welcomed
the North Vietnamese and instructed
them to work directly with the Czech
CoGS and chiefofmilitary intelligence
to correct any problems. General Quong
said he was pleased with the arrange-
ments that had been made and, espe-
cially, with the manner in which the op-
eration had been organized so that par-
ticipation by the normal bureaucracies
had been eliminated.
The discussion then focused on the
U.S. pilots and their importance. One
of the points Minister
Lomsky made was
were
different from the
ground forces in their
ability to handle stress.
Because of this type of
difference, U.S. pilots
were priority POWs
for their research pro-
gram. As an illustra-
tion of the problem the
Soviets were about to
have with the North
Vietnamese, General
Quong responded that
if you do not think the
U.S. pilots are ner-
vous, “just wait until
we finish with them.”
General Lomsky
countered with an ex-
planation that what he
was referring to was
the ability to handle
natural stress, not un-
natural stress.
The people who were present at the
meeting, in addition to Minister
Lomsky, Colonel Sejna, Soviet Mol)
advisor General Kuschev, and General
Qiiong, were the Soviet advisor to the
Czech military intelligence, the head of
Czech military intelligence, 2U and the
Czech CoGS. 50 At that time, most of
the Czech strategic leadership was on
vacation at a special resort at Orlik on
the Vltava River. A special meeting of
the Defense Council was held at the re-
sort, at which time Minister Lomsky
informed the Council that the opera-
tion had begun and then described the
preparations that had been taken.
Over the next two years, the opera-
tion was run as a low-level test program
in which the procedures and plans that
had been developed were tested and
improved. The immediate objective
was to get all the “hugs” worked out so
that full-scale secure operations could
be commenced quickly when the war
expanded. The second shipment, which
was even smaller than the first, came in
the spring of 1962 and the third, Sejna
believes, came in November or Decern-
According to the that the pilot
U.S. government, the
first American POW
was not captured un-
til August 1964. This
is more word games
by U.S. officials, be-
cause this official po-
sition on the first
POW deliberately ig-
nores the civilians,
CIA officers, and
Special Forces advi-
sors in Southeast Asia
who were lost.
Vol. IV, No. 3
37
The RESISTER
her 1962. The first large shipment of
twenty to twenty-five captives occurred
in 1963. This 1963 shipment was the
first time the FOWs were housed in
the military counter-intelligence bar-
racks, as will he subsequently described,
rather than in the villas.
During this trial period it became
clear to Sejna that Czechoslovakia was
not the only Soviet surrogate staging
area for the movement of POWs from
North Vietnam to the Soviet Union. In
the spring of 1962, Sejna attended a
meeting of the Warsaw Pact military
leaders 11 in Moscow where he learned
that Vietnam War PC) Ws were shipped
from North Vietnam to North Korea,
and thence directly to the Soviet Union.
The Chief of Staff from North Korea
was attending the meeting as an ob-
server. During the discussion the North
Korean general suggested to the Sovi-
ets that the experiments be performed
on the American FOWs while they
were in North Korea to avoid having
to fly them from North Korea to the
Soviet Union. Soviet General A. I.
Antonov, who was deputy chief of the
Soviet General Staff, declined the invi-
tation, saying that such a practice would
constitute an unnecessary security risk.
If the experiments were run in North
Korea, he explained, the Chinese were
likely to learn about the tests and this
was unacceptable to the Soviets. This
meeting took place shortly before Gen-
eral Antonovs death in June 1962. It
indicates that the plan for moving
American POWs through North Ko-
rea likely was worked out at the same
time that the operation for moving
FOWs through Czechoslovakia was
planned and that it started at about the
same time as the Czech-Soviet opera-
tion began; that is, in 1961 .
Sejna suspects that East Germany
may also have been involved in using
American FOWs in chemical agent
experiments, although he had no direct
knowledge. The reasons for his suspi-
cions are clear. I le knew the East Ger-
mans were involved in interrogations
of American FOWs using experimen-
tal drugs. They also were heavily in-
volved in the development of mind-
control drugs and chemical warfare
agents, which he knew because of data
sharing agreements the Czechs had
negotiated with the Germans. East
German security was even better than
Czech security, including that of Ger-
man military medical facilities. Finally,
The German Minister of Defense,
General Hoffmann had discussed some
of their experimental results with Sejna
as early as 1964, indicating the Ger-
mans were involved well before 1964,
and, when the Soviets presented drug
experiment results,
East German results
were usually in-
cluded / 2
The importance of
the drug development
programs was also
raised by the Soviets at
the 1 962 spring meet-
ing of the Warsaw Pact
Political Consultative
Commission (PCC).
Alexei Kosygin, the
Soviet President, gave
a speech in which be
emphasized the im-
portance of new developments in drug
technology and the possibility of test-
ing these developments. He empha-
sized the need to increase funding in
these projects and directed every coun-
try to take a careful look at their scien-
tific capacities to identify additional sci-
entists who could be put on the projects.
He did not mention at this open meet-
ing the use of FO W s as the way in which
the developments would be tested.
As their response, the Czechs con-
ducted a thorough examination of their
own drug efforts in preparation for the
five-year plan which was being orga-
nized for approval in the fall of 1962.
The Soviet guidance to them was quite
specific. They were directed to expand
their efforts. It was essential, the Sovi-
ets stressed, to be ready to exploit the
supplies of American POWs that would
accompany the growing war in South-
east Asia. There was no knowing how
long the war would last. Hence, it was
doubly important to make maximum
use of the opportunity right from the
start.
The Czechs examined the number
and types of scientists and doctors who
were available, how much money would
be needed to expand their effort, what
drugs were in development and the ex-
tent to which the development process
could be accelerated, how long it would
take to develop new drugs, and what
possibilities were available to steal re-
lated technology through espionage.
They then undertook a comprehensive
assessment of what would be required
to speed the process. In discussing the
possibilities with Czech President
Antonin Novotny, the head of the
Academy of Sciences complained bit-
terly. The Czechs could not do much
more, he said, because the Soviets
themselves caused most of the delays.
It took forever for the
Czech scientists to ob-
tain feedback from the
Soviets on the effects
the drugs had when
tested on the FOWs.
Second, and even
more serious, the
Czech doctors and sci-
entists did not have
direct access to the
POWs. All they re-
ceived were the Soviet
reports on the tests,
and they considered
those reports inad-
equate. They needed to be able to moni-
tor the tests directly.
Novotny took these complaints and
presented them in a letter to
Khrushchev. The letter was prepared
under Sejna’s direction by his secre-
tariat. The letter expressed the need to
get results back quickly and allowed as
how the Czechs would like to be more
involved, butwere constrained because
they did not know the details of how
the Soviets were using the POWs. We
recognize, Novotny’s letter continued,
that Czechoslovakia is too small a coun-
try in which to do testing on the POWs,
because they simply could not hide such
work for ever. I lowever, for Czecho-
slovakia to do more, the Czech scien-
tists and doctors would need better ac-
cess to the testing of drugs on POWs.
The problem was the Soviet KGB
penchant for secrecy. They did not want
anyone to know where the POWs were
being held. Following Novotny’s letter,
the process did improve, but the Czech
doctors still were not allowed to go to
the locations were the POWs were be-
ing held. Rather, the POWs were
brought to the Czech doctors so that
they could observe the effects of the
drugs first hand. Another problem that
delayed the program, but which was not
raised by Novotny in his letter, was the
Soviet expropriation of the Czech
ideas, and Soviet deception in report-
ing test results, particularly when thev
did not want the Czechs to know which
drugs, or combinations, were the most
effective — perhaps because the Soviets
intended the drugs for use against all
It was essential, the
Soviets stressed, to be
ready to exploit the
supplies of American
POWs that would ac-
company the growing
war in Southeast
Asia.
38
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
potential opponents, including their
own allies, a practice the Czechs would
see pursued in the emerging Vietnam
War.
Vietnam War: Transition From
Pilot Program to Full Scale
Ope rations
I B reparations for expanding the
l-^war effort formally began to-
JL ward the end of 1963 when the
formal Soviet-North Vietnamese
agreement for Warsaw Pact assistance
was signed.
This Soviet-North Vietnamese
agreement was presented to the War-
saw Pact officials who attended a meet-
ing of the Warsaw Pact Political Con-
sultative Committee in late 1963 or
early 1964. Sejna was present at the
meeting. The Soviet General Secretary,
Niki ta K h ru s h chev, pe rson ally atte n d ed
the meeting and gave a talk during
which he explained to the Committee
officials that an agreement had been
reached with North Vietnam. A top
secret part of the agreement specified
that all Warsaw Pact countries would
negotiate separate bilateral agreements
with North Vietnam.
Following this meeting, the Soviets
individually instructed each of the War-
saw Pact countries as to what the na-
ture of their assistance to, and agree-
ment with, North Vietnam would he.
I he Soviet official in charge of coordi-
nating these agreements was Leonid
Brezhnev. In the case ot Czechoslova-
kia, the formal notification came in the
form of a letter from Khrushchev to
Czechoslovakia’s President, Antonin
Novotny, as Sejna recalls, with the spe-
cific details contained in a separate
lengthy communication to the Czech
Ministry of Defense. In his letter, and
in parallel discussions, Khrushchev
stated that the American soldiers had
been most useful in the past and that
there were many new drugs and chemi-
cal and biological warfare agents under
development that needed testing. It was
in these communications that the
Czechs were directed to negotiate ar-
rangements with the North Vietnam-
ese so that the medical experiments us-
ing American POVVs could he contin-
ued.
The negotiations between Hanoi
and Prague for Czech military assis-
tance were completed in early 1964.
The primary Czech official in the ne-
gotiations was Vladimir Koucky, who
was the Czech Central Committee sec-
retary in charge of foreign policy. While
the negotiations on the surface were
conducted by the North Vietnamese
and Czech officials, behind the scenes
the Soviet advisors in Hanoi and
Prague directed the Czech negotiators.
The use of POWs was a special part
of the agreement, which was negotiated
by the Czech CoGS, General Rytir. It
included provisions for using Ameri-
can POWs for “medical research” in
North Vietnam and the field-tested plan
for exporting selected POWs to the So-
viet Union via Czechoslovakia for re-
search and for intelligence cooperation.
The intelligence cooperation portion of
the agreement referred to captured of-
ficers who could be
persuaded to defect
and to assist the Sovi-
ets in their analyses of
U.S. military capabili-
ties, technology, and
war plans.
The agreement
specified that the se-
lection of POWs
would he a joint So-
viet-North Vietnam-
ese effort. The North
Vietnamese agreed to
provide captured
South Vietnamese as
well as American sol-
diers for medical re-
search in North Viet-
nam. This was done to enable the So-
viet studies on ethnic differences and
vulnerabilities unique to Asians to be
continued. However, the agreement
stipulated that experiments on South
Vietnamese would he performed only
in North Vietnam; that is, the South
Vietnamese POWs would not he ex-
ported to the Soviet Union. u The
Czechs and Soviets agreed to provide
medical equipment, experimental
drugs, biological organisms and viruses,
and, naturally, doctors and medical sup-
port personnel.
The conditions in North Vietnam
were quite different from those in
North Korea because the North Kore-
ans were surrogates controlled by the
Soviets while, in contrast, the North
Vietnamese were determined to remain
in control themselves and not become
either Soviet or Chinese puppets.
When the Czech-Soviet military assis-
tance programs expanded in North
Vietnam in 1964, numerous disagree-
ments arose. Problems were encoun-
tered, largely because the Soviets
pushed hard to expand their participa-
tion and exert controlling influences,
while the North Vietnamese worked to
block Soviet efforts to expand their
presence. This was true in the POW
medical research programs as well as in
the more traditional types of military
assistance. As an example of one prob-
lem in the medical research area, the
North Vietnamese wanted final ap-
proval on the specific doctors who
would participate, while the Soviets did
not want the North Vietnamese to have
any background data on the doctors that
might reveal which ones were from
military intelligence. As regards tradi-
tional military assis-
tance, the Soviets and
Czechs wanted to de-
ploy “volunteer” offic-
ers, such as pilots, to
the war effort so that
they could gain com-
bat experience. Ad-
ditionally, where the
Soviets provided mili-
tary equipment, such
as air defense missiles,
they wanted to place
technicians at those
bases. The North Viet-
namese strongly op-
posed these efforts.
They wanted to limit
the Soviet presence
because they were secretly sharing So-
viet technology with the Chinese. Also,
they wanted the defeat ot the Ameri-
cans to be a clear North Vietnamese
victory.
The principal problem in the medi-
cal experiment program, from the So-
viet perspective, was one of forcing the
Vietnamese to accept a scientific ap-
proach to the experiments. The Viet-
namese did not have the medical or sci-
entific understanding needed to run
valid and useful tests. The Vietnamese
were, in the Soviet eyes, simply too
crude. They were more interested in ex-
tracting vengeance than in conducting
scientific tests. Furthermore, the Viet-
namese were inadequately trained in
psychology. While they understood the
psychology of Asians very well, they did
not have a good knowledge of the psy-
chology of Westerners. This knowledge
was crucial to the tests because many of
the experiments were designed to test
the effect of experimental drugs on the
...understanding
the effects of drugs on
soldiers under ex-
treme stress — de-
signed to simulate
the stress levels ex-
pected in an all-out
nuclear war — was one
of the Soviet objec-
tives.
Vol. IV, No. 3
39
American psyche. Moreover, they did
not understand the importance of stress
and its relation to the testing process.
That is, understanding the effects of
drugs on soldiers under extreme
stress — designed to simulate the stress
levels expected in an all-out nuclear
war — was one of the Soviet objectives.
This was one of the reasons behind the
psychological and physiological stress
experiments; namely, to enable testing
the effects of experimental drugs on sol-
diers under extremely stressful condi-
tions.
Another example was illustrated by
a visit General Qiiong paid to Prague
and Moscow in late 1964. Quong vis-
ited Prague and Moscow several times
to deliver reports on the POW opera-
tions and to conduct planning sessions
with the Soviets. On his visit in late
1964, he met with Minister Lomsky
specifically to complain that the opera-
tion discriminated against the North
Vietnamese. He believed more of the
medical research should be done in
North Vietnam and that the North Viet-
namese should have the results of the
research conducted in the Soviet Union.
He also wanted to press for the oppor-
tunity to use PO Ws for strategic intel-
ligence; that is, he wanted to hold
POWs, turn them, and then return
them as spies. The Russians opposed
the idea because they would be unable
to control the North Vietnamese in the
operation, and, besides, they already
had their own plan in operation, which
was focused on recruiting American
military personnel in South Vietnam
and in Australia/ 4 They felt those were
better places to recruit agents because
the POW route was too obvious and
too easy for the Americans to detect.
Regarding the Vietnamese interest
in the experiments conducted in the
Soviet Union, the Soviets were very
careful not to let the North Vietnamese
(or other allies) have access to much of
their research, especially the research
on mind-control drugs, which utilized
POWs. The reason was simple: the
Soviets planned to use the drugs against
the North Vietnamese (and other al-
lies) to help keep them under control.
They also planned to use the confusion-
producing drugs on the Chinese tech-
nicians who were in North Vietnam to
steal the Warsaw Pact technology that
was on loan to the North Vietnamese.
To resolve the many problems, a sec-
ond agreement was negotiated in 1965.
The RESISTER
These were difficult negotiations and
required the personal participation in
Hanoi of several high-level Czech offi-
cials. Specifically, even Josef Lenart, the
Czech Prime Minister, and General
Vaclav Prchlik, the chief of the Main
Political Administration, went to Hanoi
to conduct the negotiations, with the
sensitive intelligence aspects handled by
General Prchlik/'
The agreement that Lenart and
Prchlic reached with the North Viet-
namese dealt with many aspects of mili-
tary assistance. Elaborations on the
POW experiments
were, as before, a se- — — — —
cret part of this agree-
ment negotiated by
Prchlic. Under the
“medical research”
portion of the agree-
ment, procedures for
selecting the doctors
were established. Ad-
ditionally, the agree-
ment stated that the
experiments in North
Vietnam would he run _____
by the North Viet-
namese doctors in their hospitals.
Czech and Soviet doctors would par-
ticipate by providing guidance (super-
vision) and all experimental data would
be available to them for their use in
monitoring the various tests.
Experiments on POWs in
Laos and China
A s soon as experiments on U.S.
POWs had commenced in
North Vietnam, negotiations
were held with the Laotians to gain their
participation as well. Sejna personally
worked with General Sin Ka-po, who
headed the communist forces, and Gen-
eral Kong-le, who headed the “neutral-
ist” forces, on matters respecting Czech
operations in Laos. The Czech/Soviet
agreement for the use of POWs for
medical experiments was negotiated
with General Sin Ka-po. Laos was gen-
erally more complicated than North
Vietnam because of the government in-
stabilities. Thus, most arrangements
were run through the Party system than
through the government. Again, mili-
tary intelligence was in charge. Two li-
aison officers from Laos were stationed
in Prague to handle coordination. Lao-
tian security was very good, Sejna re-
calls. The Laotian approach to security
was quite simple. If there was concern
In addition to serv-
ing as guinea pigs for
the Soviet medical
that someone was a security risk, that
individual was killed.
In Laos, both Soviet and Czech doc-
tors worked directly on the patients.
There were two “hospital” facilities
where experiments were performed in
Laos. The Czech doctors described the
conditions at these facilities as “primi-
tive.” This was not bad, reasoned the
Soviets, because combat was often con-
ducted in primitive conditions and,
thus, operating under such conditions
was good experience.
Generally, there were three Czech
military doctors in
Laos, five to seven in
North Vietnam, and a
larger number of So-
viet doctors in both lo-
cations. All doctors
who worked on this
intelligence program, P ro £ r ' am first had to
1 ^ pass detailed special
the American GIs
were also used by the
Chinese.
background investiga-
tions, involving both
Czech and Soviet
military counter-in-
_______ telligence, before their
participation was ap-
proved.
In addition to their use as medical
guinea pigs, American POWs were also
used for testing the effectiveness of “in-
terrogation” drugs. Interrogations of
captive GIs were conducted in Laos,
North Vietnam, and North Korea.
Czech interrogations were run by mili-
tary counter-intelligence, which was
then under General Josef Stavinoha.
The interrogations, like all other activi-
ties, were supervised and controlled hv
Soviet officers. Experimental drugs
were used in interrogations. The East
Germans were similarly involved. The
East German Minister of Defense,
General Heinz Hoffmann, once re-
marked to Sejna while the two were off
on a fishing trip in 1964 that the new
drugs tested on the Americans were
“one thousand percent more effective
than physical means of persuasion.”
In addition to serving as guinea pigs
for the Soviet medical intelligence pro-
gram, the American G Is were also used
by the Chinese. The Chinese had an
experimental program as early as the
Korean War. The North Koreans pro-
vided American POWs to the Chinese
as well as to the Soviets. The Chinese
and Soviets shared data on the various
experiments and their results. The So-
viets criticized the Chinese program as
40
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
being too extreme. That is, the Chinese
were strictly focused on the use of weap-
ons of mass destruction. In contrast, the
Soviet interest was more focused on the
development of new drugs and their use
to triumph over the enemy without war.
Czech military intelligence was also
aware of the continuation of the Chi-
nese medical research using American
POWs during the Vietnam War. Czech
military intelligence had identified the
movement of American POWs in Chi-
nese trucks or buses headed toward the
Chinese boarder. Additionally, a senior
Czech military intelligence officer who
was undercover in China as a military
attache reported on a Chinese request
to share information on continued
medical test programs. The Chinese
official complained to the Czech
“attache” that even if there were devel-
oping antagonisms between their two
countries, some cooperative activities
should continue, for example, he sug-
gested, the joint research on American
POWs. We are continuing this re-
search, he said, and asked, why don’t
we continue to share results of this re-
search?There is no reason to keep your
program secret. We know the Ameri-
can POWs are being sent to the Soviet
Union for research. Information ex-
change on these research programs
would be of use to both our countries.
Movement of American
POWs to Russia
T o complement the experiments
run in Laos and North Viet-
nam, each year during the Viet-
nam War scores of selected G Is — those
who were the most healthy — were
shipped back to the Soviet Union for
use in more highly classified, sophisti-
cated, and long-term experiments, again
through Czechoslovakia w ’ to break the
trail. Up until his defection in 1968,
General Sejna was knowledgeable about
the shipments and personally super-
vised portions of the operation. There
were generally two or three shipments
of POWs each year, always by air. While
the airplanes were manned by the So-
viet military, for security and deception
purposes the planes always bore the
insignia of some country other than the
USSR.; for example, Bulgaria, or Ru-
mania, or Hungary.
The flights used the secure Czech
military air base at Zatek, which was
roughly forty kilometers from Prague.
Special securitv measures were in ef-
fect when POWs were on the base.
Military counter-intelligence took over
base security. All unnecessary person-
nel were excluded from the base. Trans-
portation to Prague was provided by
the Ministry of Defense special trans-
portation battalion. Special buses
whose windows had been pained over
were driven to the planes. The POWs
were unloaded directly onto the bus(es).
Once loaded, the bus(es) left the air base
by a s pe c i a 1 e n t ra n ce m a n n ed excl u si vely
by specially cleared military counter-
intelligence guards.
From the air base, the POWs were
driven directly to highly secret military
counter-intelligence barracks at
Pohorelc in Prague. Normally, twenty
to twenty- five POWs
constituted a “ship-
ment;” although, on
one occasion, in the
fall ofl966, there was
a large shipment of
about sixty POWs. As
a cover story, the
POWs were referred
to as students or for-
eign soldiers who were
visiting Czechoslova-
kia for specialized
training. The barracks
area, which was where
foreign soldiers often stayed when in
Czechoslovakia for training, was con-
sidered a very safe place to hide the
POWs because they could be tightly
secured yet their presence could be eas-
ilv explained as just some foreign stu-
dents temporarily in Czechoslovakia
for training.
Often, a small portion of a shipment,
say three or four POWs, would be
separated from the main group and
housed at the Defense Council secre-
tariat villas on Rusveltova street and
Korejska street. The military intelli-
gence villa on Sluna street was also used
when needed. Once, there was a special
shipment of only two or three POWs
who were also housed in these villas
rather than the barracks and during the
large shipment of 60 POWs in 1966,
there were six or seven “special” PO W s.
These select POWs were usually ones
who had decided to cooperate with the
Soviets or who were sick and needed to
be isolated. The cooperating GIs were
selected from the POWs who were re-
garded as “progressive.” In all cases,
great care was exercised to isolate these
people, not only from the main group,
but from each other as well. In the case
of the 1966 shipment, Sejna recalls the
problem they had finding enough villas
to house these special POWs and keep
them separated.
From his position as first secretary
at the MoD, Sejna was present several
times when the vans unloaded the
POWs at the military counter-intelli-
gence barracks and personally visited
the POWs there and at the various se-
cret villas to ensure that the operation
was going according to plan. While
most of the POWs were American,
there were exceptions. Sejna recalls that,
prior to his departure, two Australians
were processed along with the Ameri-
can POWs and sent to the Soviet Union.
As was the case fol-
1 owing the Korean
War, Czech doctors
participated in the
medical experiments
using Vietnam War
POWs in the Soviet
Union. The most im-
portant experiments
were those dealing
with the development
of mind -control and
b e h a v i o r - m o d i fi c a -
tion drugs, the testing
of biological warfare
organisms, and tests of the effects of
nuclear radiation. Mind-control drug
experiments were designed to exam-
ine the effectiveness of a wide variety
of drugs that would influence human
behavior and mental capabilities. I be
effect of such drugs under different
stress conditions was also examined, as
previously noted. The Soviets also con-
ducted tests to determine how the ef-
fects varied according to age, race, and
intellectual background. In the latter
case, they wanted to know if the drug
effectiveness when given to officers was
different from what it was when given
to soldiers. One of the more important
findings that Sejna recalls was that the
drugs that were used to influence be-
liefs were found to be more effective
when used on men with higher educa-
tional achievements. That is, it was
easier to mold the minds of the intel-
lectuals than the minds of the “primi-
tives,” to use the Soviet expression. Spe-
cial substances (drugs and well as bio-
logical organisms) designed for use as
assassination weapons were also tested.
One of the objects of these tests were to
develop substances that would result in
As was the case fol-
lowing the Korean
War, Czech doctors
participated in the
medical experiments
using Vietnam War
POWs in the Soviet
Union.
Vol. IV, No. 3
41
The RESISTER
the appearance of death from natural
causes.
One of the highest priority biologi-
cal warfare test programs was the test-
ing of unique diseases for which there
were no known cures and accompany-
ing tests of experimental treatments.
Efforts were also underway at that time
to develop new strains of viruses that
acted quickly and could disable groups
of people within twenty-four hours of
exposure. Off-site laboratory support
for the various Soviet research projects,
such as blood and tissue sample analy-
sis, was provided by a variety of hospi-
tals, including the Czech Central M ili-
tary 1 lospital.
Experiments involving the physi-
ological and psychological effects of
electro -magnetic radiation — low fre-
quency to microwaves — on the human
specimens also were run during the
Vietnam War era. In the late spring of
1967, the Soviets stressed the impor-
tance of this electro-magnetic research
to the chief of the Science Administra-
tion of the Czech Ministry of Defense.
The subject was so important that, upon
his return, he gave a talk on the subject
to a high-level group of Czech officials,
which included the members of the
M i n is ter's K ol 1 egi u m .
| It is interesting to recall that ten
years later, U.S. news media began car-
rying reports that the Soviets had been
deliberately bombarding the U.S. em-
bassy in Moscow with low-level micro-
wave radiation, and that this had been
going on since the 1960s/' What they
o o J
did not report was that the U.S. had
conducted research into the effect of
low power microwaves in the mid-
1970s. Ibis research was motivated by
the Soviet radiation. The tests that were
run on laboratory animals, including
primates, showed that such radiation
could be used to impair short-term
memory, totally erase task-oriented
training, and induce a wide variety of
physical effects such as heart fibrilla-
tion and cellular disorders. |
One of the reports that Sejna recalls
reading in late 1966 was based on the
POW experiments. Its subject was “the
effects and improvements in special
destructive weapons for use in prepa-
ration for war (that is, during peace-
time! and during war.” This report
covered the results achieved roughly
between 1959 and 1966. One of the
principal topics was the analysis of au-
topsy results. The focus was on the
physical destruction of organs such as
the heart, brain, nervous system, and
so forth. The data base included two
hundred to two hundred and fifty ex-
amples. How many cadavers this re-
ferred to Sejna could not recall .The ef-
fects of both chemical and biological
agents on the destruction of organs
were considered, and recommenda-
tions for further research were formu-
lated. The principal recommendations
were directed to the development of
drugs and biological organisms that
would destroy specific organs at a faster
rate.
The most important findings were
directed to the nervous system. There,
the critical concern was to “gently de-
grade” an individual’s ability to func-
tion, but not to destroy it. The idea was
to sabotage an individual’s ability, but
not so much that the individual was
taken out of his job, placed in a hospi-
tal, and then replaced
by a new, fully-capable
person. The report
also discussed the
problem of delivery of
the chemical warfare
drugs. There were two
d i ffe re n t ta rge ts : indi-
viduals and groups,
which roughly meant
officers and soldiers.
Those whose performance they wanted
to degrade, but not so much that they
were removed from their jobs, were the
officers. The problem was how to sepa-
rate the delivery of different agents. It
was all right if drugs intended for offic-
ers were delivered to soldiers, but the
reverse was to be avoided. What was
especially curious in this analysis was
the presence of experimental data that
had been collected in operations run
against U.S. military forces based in
Germany and in Okinawa.
The American POWs were also
used by the Soviets for testing new nar-
cotic drugs. As indicated earlier, one of
the most important Soviet and East
European strategic intelligence opera-
tions was international drug traffick-
ing. Czechoslovakia was one of the lead
Soviet surrogates in this operation/*
The development of better drugs was
part of the Czech chemical warfare pro-
gram, where by “better” was meant
drugs that produced better and longer
lasting highs, drugs that were cheaper
and easier to produce, and drugs that
were more rapidly addictive. 1 ” The ex-
perimental drugs developed in Czecho-
slovakia were first tested on prisoners,
and then covertly field tested on uni-
versity students, particularly those in
West Germany. They were also tested
on American POYVs in the Soviet
Union, which Czech intelligence pre-
ferred because it was operationally
much easier than the university student
approach.
As an indication of size, in the late
1960s roughly fifteen Czech doctors
and about eight scientists from the
Czech Academy of Sciences were in-
volved in the POW research projects
in the Soviet Union. The experiments
that involved Czech doctors and scien-
tists were carried out at roughly twenty
different institutes in the Soviet Union.
Ehe medical experiments also involved
a variety of East European doctors and
scientists who, along with the Czechs
and their Soviet counterparts, were
formed into project
teams. This was com-
mon practice for sci-
entific research in pri-
ority areas. To better
focus their efforts and
to improve security,
the Soviets built a spe-
cial institute in the
Moscow area where
the scientists involved
in drug, chemical, and biological war-
fare research could be concentrated.
There was a special department at the
institute for POW research. 40
Planning for Security In
Anticipation of War
Termination
T here was yet another agreement
with the North Vietnamese
that was of special significance
and that is particularly important in
estimating what likely happened after
Sejna left Czechoslovakia in 1968. In
roughly 1967, the Soviets encouraged
the North Vietnamese to open a sec-
ond front; that is, a diplomatic front.
At that time, the Soviets knew the war
had to end sometime. They also recog-
nized the political climate in the United
States was growing opposed to the war.
Accordingly, they concluded the time
was ripe to begin planning for the end
of the war. As part of their planning,
the Soviets decided that if a cease fire
were negotiated, all evidence of the ex-
perimental medical programs, and that
included the POW subjects themselves,
The American
POWs were also used
by the Soviets for
testing new narcotic
drugs.
42
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
had to be either destroyed or removed
to the Soviet Union. Most of all, they
wanted to make certain that any evi-
dence that showed either the Soviet or
Czech involvement in medical experi-
ments was removed to the Soviet
Union; for example, medical records
and equipment such as that associated
with the testing of biological organisms
and viruses.
Again, they encountered strong
North Vietnamese resistance. The
North Vietnamese were not concerned
about ending the war. They saw the war
as a mechanism for destroying Ameri-
can imperialism and, thus, wanted the
war to continue.
Tough negotiations were required
to bring the North Vietnamese around
to the Soviet view. The argument that
won the North Vietnamese over was
the problem of “stay-behind” agents.
The United States could decide to end
the war bv pulling out at any time.
When they did, the Soviets argued,
there would be a large number of stay-
behind agents that would be able to
migrate to the North, and those agents
might find out what had been happen-
ing.
he North Vietnamese agreed and the
Soviets and North Vietnamese signed
an agreement to begin planning for the
evacuation of records, equipment, and
specimens that remained at the end of
the war. When the war would end was a
North Vietnamese decision, f fence, the
plan was keyed to the North Vietnam-
ese decision to terminate the war. Until
then, the experiments and related ac-
tivities would continue.
This is when the planning for the
eventual termination of the experimen-
tal programs in North Vietnam began.
It involved very few people, but all the
critical agencies were represented. 41 The
Czechs were involved in these negotia-
tions because the movements of mate-
rial and people to the Soviet Union at
the war’s end was to be through
Czechoslovakia.
As before, the critical aspect of the
planning was security. All measures
were employed to assure the secrecy of
the operation. As originally stated by
the Soviet Defense Council when the
operation began in 1951, no one was
ever to know about this operation. That
was the guiding philosophy, from be-
ginning to end.
Related Information
U .S. officials were expecting well
over 2,000 POWs to be re
turned during Operation
Homecoming in 1973. At that time,
DIA listed 667 Americans as POWs
and 1 ,986 as M I A, and many C I A and
so-called “black” operations personnel
who were missing were not included in
the lists. Only 586 POWs were repa-
triated.
North Vietnamese and Russian
documents and sources have now made
it clear that hundreds of American
POWs who were alive when captured
were never returned. The fact that the
numbers returned were far less than the
numbers of POWs held
is confirmed by a GRU
document recovered in
1 993. According to that
document, at least 700
POWs were not re-
turn ed . T h i s ge n e ral fig-
ure is also supported by
three different North
Vietnamese sources.
This figure is within the
range of the numbers
that might have become
medical guinea pigs as reported by
General Sejna.
One of the more interesting ac-
counts of what happened to American
POWs is the testimony of the North
Vietnamese Army doctor Dang Tan,
who defected to South Vietnam in
1969. At a press conference on May
11, 1971, he said:
“American POWs... are being
treated as commodities.”
“I lanoi s representatives in Paris
[state] that NVN now holds only 367
American POWs in captivity. 1 /ad ies and
Gentlemen, this is untrue. I know that
already by mid- 1967, when I departed
NVN, over 800 American POWs were
then in captivity in NVN.” [When
pressed by news men, Tan stated that
the official number used in I lanoi was
1000, but that he believed this was high.
1 lis estimate was over 800. Additionally,
Tan stated that as many as 500 American
POWs had simply “disappeared.”]
“The Politburo policies require
that these Americans be exploited,
intensively as possible.”
“NVN, in violation of the laws
and regulations which apply to POWs,
has permitted other Communist bloc
countries to exploit these American
POWs including Communist China,
the USSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia and
other countries.”
“American POWs have been
taken to other Communist countries.”
“All types of methods are
employed to extract information from
the POWs. This goes beyond the normal
brainwashing and political
indoctrination and includes the use of
different drugs to weaken their will”
“The ruthless interrogation and
exploitation of American POWs is
inhumane.”
His information,
Pan explains, came
from official briefings
and discussions with of-
ficials and individuals
who were directly in-
volved in the exploita-
tion of A m e r i c a n
POWs.
A CIA Saigon Sta-
tion cable on Dr. Tan also
identifies additional information from
fan that was reported in the Chink Lnan
newspaper on M arch 20, 1971, sourced
to Tin Viet News Services. I lvat infor-
mation included statements that the ex-
ploitation of American POWs was set
forth in a North Vietnamese treaty and
that POWs were removed from North
Vietnam and sent to China and Russia
for further exploitation.
Everything that Dr. Tan said as re-
ported in the various CIA and State
Department cables released by Sena-
tor John Kerry on May 26, 1993, pro-
vides support for the detailed account
provided by General Sejna.
Additionally, during hearings held
by the Senate Select Committee on
POW/M I A Affairs that Senator Kerry
chaired in 1992, several individuals,
most notably Jerry Mooney and Barry
Toll, explained that they had seen nu-
merous classified documents on the
shipment of American POWs by air
from Southeast Asia to the Soviet
Union. Both men had held sensitive
intelligence clearances and were privy
to various intelligence information in
the early 1970s. Mr. Mooney, who had
worked at the National Security
Agency, testified that he had followed
intelligence on American POWs who
...POWs were re-
moved from North
Vietnam and sent
to China and Rus-
sia for further ex-
ploitation.
Vol. IV, No. 3
43
The RESISTER
were identified as “Moscow Bound.”
Mr. Toll, who had worked as special
security officer in the CINCLANT
emergency operations center, reported
that he had seen CIA and JCS reports
on Americans being shipped out of
Southeast Asia and that in one special
case, it appeared to him that an attempt
was being mounted by the United States
to force one of the planes down.
In all these cases, there has been clear
negligence in tracking down the infor-
mation, assessing its implications, cor-
relating it with other data, and making
the full record available to the public. 42
Additionally, in the case of Dr. Tan’s
information, there is direct evidence of
efforts to suppress the information on
the numbers of POWs held and on the
use of drugs to weaken the will of the
POWs. 44
Lessons Learned
A t the time of the Holocaust,
there was information on what
was happening, but no one
wanted to listen, or take action. T he use
of American POWs as guinea pigs by
the communists is no different. The in-
formation is abundant, the crimes are
of the most heinous sort. But, no one
wants to listen, or take action.
Based on the information returned
by various individuals in their search
for answers to the question, “What
happened to all the missing American
POW/MIAs?,” it appears that either
very little was learned from the I lolo-
caust or the lessons are very selectively
applied. Regardless of which is closer
to the truth, the fact remains that the
United States government has grossly
failed to honor its obligation to the men
and women in America’s armed forces.
And, as recognized by the Senate Se-
lect Committee in their final report, the
problem will not go away — as much as
all the U.S., Russian, Vietnamese, Chi-
nese, Czech, and other former Soviet
satellite officials might like it to go away.
The U.S. Senators might be well ad-
vised to re-read their own words:
“Something very real happened to each
of those brave men, and our country
will not be at peace with itself until we
are morally certain we have done all we
could to find out what.” 44
While there is no accurate count of
the number of Americans who ended
up as Soviet guinea pigs, the number
from the Korean War would approach
if not exceed 1 ,000 and, from the Viet-
nam War, at least several hundred, likely
over five hundred. How many from
World War 1 1 met this fate and whether
it would have been better or worse than
those who perished in communist slave
labor camps is anyone’s guess. Russia
isn’t telling and the U.S. government isn’t
asking.
Are any missing American POWs
likely still alive? The more we consider
the above information, the more we
believe that the possibility is very good
that many more than a mere handful
may still be alive.
Moreover, we believe
that if there were seri-
ous interest, the search
for American POW/
MIAs could be far
more effective than it
has been.
Without serious
question, the current
search efforts are in-
herently designed to
fail. No “cooperative”
efforts, which consti-
tute the essence — if
not entirety — of the
U.S. search efforts in
Russia, Southeast
Asia, and Korea, are
likely to obtain confir-
mation, especially because it is equally
clear that the U.S. officials in charge of
the search do not want to find any-
thing. 4 "
All the participants and officials of
the participating countries know full
well that the entire program was a seri-
ous and deliberate violation of inter-
national law and human rights, and as
stated by General Sejna, they all knew
it to be so. Many participants are as
alive as General Sejna and many hold
positions in the new regimes. No one
and no country is about to admit that
any of the events describe by General
Sejna took place. With rare exception,
all relevant files were removed and
taken to Russia for “safe keeping” be-
fore the Iron Curtain was allowed to
fall.
It is hard to conceive of a more dis-
graceful farce than these “cooperative
efforts” that our American Senators and
high-level government officials have
praised — and which they all know to
be a farce. None of them can be said to
have a burning desire to learn what hap-
pened, or rescue any Americans who
may still be alive and held captive or
who are too afraid to come home. Their
only interest is in winning votes while
trying to paper over the POW/MIA
problem. The reasons are all too obvi-
ous: the lure of business profits to be
made; the need to avoid surfacing the
duplicity of hundreds of highest level
U.S. officials going back forty years; and
the continuing desire of the “establish-
ment” to hide the evils and crimes of
socialist regimes.
'For example, the
source was the first to
identify the Defense
Council and its impor-
tance, the role of the So-
viet Union in sponsoring
international terrorism,
the role of the Cuban,
Soviet, and Fast Euro-
pean intelligence services
in narcotics trafficking,
and the existence and
particulars of a coordi-
nated long-range plan to
subvert and destroy
Western industrial coun-
tries.
The fact that Gen-
eral Sejna is a DIA em-
ployee was made public
by the Senate Select
Committee.
’The Administration operated under the
authority of deputy minister of defense
Ferdinan Svoboda. Its chief was Colonel
Rohac.
The news of this hospital was also a
surprise to the CIA and DIA when Sejna’s
information was brought to their attention
in 1992. This also suggests that no POWs
returned from it because had they, they
would have reported on the hospital in their
routine debriefings by U.S. intelligence. The
existence of this hospital has now been con-
firmed by Czechoslovak authorities.
This type of background information
is essential in planning a strategy to obtain
more information. One of the mechanisms
used bv the Soviets to control countries has
been to insert its own people into key posi-
tions in various countries. One of the best
examples of this process is North Korea, as
described in “How Russian Troops and
Guns Help Kill Americans,” U.S. News
World Report , May 28, 1954. I bis control
mechanism is still important. While the
Sov iet Union no longer exists as such , the
KGB and GRU are still very much alive,
along with their ability to control people of
influence through blackmail and intimida-
tion, especially people who were, and still
may be, important cover agents.
6 One of his key assistants was Dr. Plzak,
who was in charge of neurological research
NOTES:
It is hard to con-
ceive of a more dis-
graceful farce than
these “cooperative ef-
forts” that our Ameri-
can Senators and
high-level govern-
ment officials have
praised — and which
they all know to be a
farce.
44
Vol. IV, No. 3
at the Central Military Hospital.
The Kollegium was a small group (ten
in Czechoslovakia) of senior officials who
acted almost as a “preliminary” Defense
Council at the Ministry of Defense. The
members were appointed by the Defense
Council. The [Collegium was run by the
Minister of Defense. Except for operations
and intelligence, all issues that were to go
before the Defense Council were first dis-
cussed in the Kollegium.The discussion on
the North Korean hospital arose during a
discussion of military field hospitals and the
knowledge that had been gained about how
such hospitals should be organized during
operation of the experimental hospital in
North Korea.
s The Defense Council has operated un-
der a variety of different names in different
communist countries. In Czechoslovakia,
the Defense Council was formally termed
the Military Committee of the Central
Committee from 1 956 to 1 969. Before that
it was called the Council for the Defense ot
the Republic, and in 1969 its name was
changed to the Highest Council for the
Defense of the State. Henceforth, the term
“Defense Council” will be used to avoid the
confusion that is produced by all the name
changes. Sejna drafted the charter and regu-
lations for the Czech Defense Council in
1956 based on the secret Soviet Defense
Council documents he was given by the
Soviets. He was the working secretary of
the Defense Council from 1956 to 1964
and, as such, in charge of its secretariat. The
cx officio secretary was the Minister of De-
fense, who at the time was General Bohimir
Lomsky. The Defense Council met every
other week in the personal conference room
of the First Secretary, on Tuesday afternoon.
The meetings began promptly at 1 :00 and
usually ran until 5:00 or 6:00. The Soviet
advisor was always present when events of
international significance were discussed.
'In cases of the utmost sensitivity, deci-
sions were made by a subset of two or three
members of the Defense Council, such as
the First Secretary and M inister of Defense
or Minister of Interior.
,() The members are established by law.
During Sejna’s time they were the First Sec-
retary, who was the chairman, his deputy,
the Prime Minister, Minister of Defense,
Minister of Interior, and I lead of the State
Planning Commission. In 1967, another
official, the Chairman of Parliament, was
added.
"These are the POW shipments on
which Sejna had knowledge. There may
have been, and most likely probably were,
other shipments to the Soviet Union that
did not go through Prague and, hence, would
not have been known to Czech officials.
1 In extremely sensitive intelligence
projects, such as this one using American
POWs, security measures were very care-
fully planned so that even the people who
77je RESISTER
were working on the project did not know
its nature unless absolutelv necessary. Cover
stories were devised so that participants re-
ceived enough information to do their jobs,
but were mislead as to the true nature of the
project. The overall deception plan, or as it
was usually called, the “political plan,” in
which such measures were set forth, was
prepared as part of the decision process. This
plan was reviewed and approved bv the De-
fense Council as part of the process of mak-
ing the basic decision. Even deception plans
designed to protect the project in the event
that security was breached or compromised
were prepared in advance and approved by
the Defense Council.
"In this case. General Major Bojkov.
"Coded telephone communications
were used for normal administration func-
tions, e.g. housekeeping. In this case code
words were used to refer to the operation or
location. Except in emergency, serious mat-
ters were only discussed in person, face to
face.
"General Lieutenant Evzen Chlad, an-
other former Soviet citizen.
"General Major M. Cerny.
1 'As early as 1965, specialists within the
U.S. Atomic Energy Community knew that
the Soviet knowledge of the effects of high
levels of radiation exposure on humans was
greater than the U.S. knowledge. The un-
challenged assumption was that the Soviets
had gained this experienced as a consequence
of accidents and poor safetv standards.
While that may have been the case, it is
now evident that there is another more rea-
sonable explanation; to wit, their use of cap-
tive GIs in radiation dose experiments.
Additionally, on March 20, 1994, 60 Min-
utes had a special segment on the Soviet use
of civilian communities in radiation experi-
ments in which the communities close to
detonations were exposed to low level direct
radiation and subsequent fallout to test the
effects of nuclear war on civilian communi-
ties.
"Josef Kudrna.
"General Major Josef Stavinoha.
2<) General Major Oldrich Burda.
2 'General Major Vasil Lalo, another
former Soviet citizen.
22 In 1961, this individual was General
Major Lalo.
2 'In the communist system (with the
exception of Poland) military counter-in-
telligence, which was responsible for pro-
tecting the integrity of the military, actually
came under civilian intelligence and, as such,
served as an additional civilian watchdog,
the other being the political officers associ-
ated with the Main Political Administra-
tion.
"One of the great surprises when 586
American POWs were repatriated in 1973
was the absence of any amputees. The ques-
tion Why? has never been answered. The
explanation might be that such operations
were conducted in special military hospitals,
the same ones in which various medical in-
telligence experiments were conducted. Any
POW entering such a hospital logically
would never have been permitted to leave
because the risk that would pose to the op-
eration. This also appears to have been the
policy in the Korean War hospital from
which no patients are known to have left
alive, except those shipped to the Soviet
Union for further experimental use.
"Other members were the first deputy
Mol, the chief of military intelligence, chief
of military counter-intelligence, and chief
of the 2nd Administration of the Mol,
which was the Czech counterpart to the
Soviet KGB intelligence.
•"Sejna does not recall whether this ship-
ment was composed of soldiers or civilians.
I le personally observed the isolated Ameri-
can who was housed at the Rusvcltova #1
villa. This individual, he believes, was an
advisor.
Quong is the pronunciation Sejna
used. Fhc Vietnamese name can also be spelt
Kwang, Kuang, and Qiiang. While Sejna
believes Quong is the same individual as the
one that has been highly publicized follow-
ing the disclosure of the G RU document in
1993, he cannot be certain until he has the
opportunity to review a photograph of
“Quong” referenced in the GRU docu
ment.
"There were five departments in Sejna’s
secretariat. The “Special Department” was
most secret. It held all strategic plans and
the correspondence between the Minister,
the Soviet General Staff, and the highest
Party leaders. The other four departments
handled legislative and legal affairs, military
discipline, entertainment, and hospitality.
I he hospitality department handled visit-
ing foreign dignitaries, including the villas
where they stayed.
"General Oldrich Burda.
"General Okatar Rytir.
" I /ater, this group became known as the
M ilitary Council of the Warsaw Pact.
"’Additionally, in 1965 Soviet officials
proposed a swap of American POWs for
two Soviet spies. The same offer was re-
peated in 1966 by the German, Wolfgang
Vogel. A repeat offer was made in 1967, at
which time the POWs were said to be in an
East German military hospital. See May 12,
1993 State Department cable traffic.
"This only referred to the shipment of
South Vietnamese POWs through
Czechoslovakia. It was clear to Sejna that
the Soviets had a plentiful supply of South
Vietnamese for medical experiments in the
Soviet Union. Reports on the effects of any
drug tests, especially mind-control drugs that
were only conducted in the Soviet LTnion,
contained data on the results of tests on
South Vietnamese.
"Australia was one of the places that
GIs went for rest and recreation. As such,
Vol. IV, No. 3
45
The RESISTER
Czech intelligence was active pushing drugs
onto the vacationing GIs and, where ap-
propriate, attempting recruitment.
^Contrary to the conventional wisdom
that sees the Military Political Administra-
tion (MPA) as simply an internal military
political correctness institution, the MPA,
particularly its top officials, had a leading
role in intelligence operations, especiallv the
design, deception components, security, and
personnel selection. The “why and how” of
intelligence operations of the highest sen-
sitivity were regularly discussed by Sejna,
who was also a member of the M PA senior
internal advisory bureau, and General Ma-
jor Prchlic with the Soviet head of their
M PA, General Aleksey Yepishev and his top
deputies, from whom Sejna and Prchlic re-
ceived instructions on, for example, how to
advise military intelligence officials regard-
ing politically sensitive portions on intelli-
gence plans. General Yepishev, incidentally,
had been deputy chief of the MVD (KGB
predecessor under Stalin). lie had been
placed in that position by Krushchev to keep
watch over MVD activities. General
Yepishev also headed the KGB portion of
the intelligence task force under General
Mironov during the Brezhnev strategy re-
vision of 1 956-57 previously described. Serge
Petuchov headed the G R U sub-task force.
u, And through North Korea and other
communist countries such as East Germany.
See: “Making Waves” and “The Mi-
crowave f uror,” Newsweek, March 15 and
22, 1976.
ls The development of this operation is
described in detail in Joseph 1). Douglass
Jr., Red Cocaine: The Dragging of America
(Atlanta, Clarion Mouse, 1990). See also:
Joseph D. Douglass Jr., and Jan Sejna, “In-
ternational Narcotics Trafficking: The So-
viet Connection ,” Journal of Defense and
Diplomacy , December 1986.
'By 1967, Czech scientists had devel-
oped several new “recreational” drugs that
in their judgment were better than cocaine.
The Soviet advisor directed them not to
place it on the market because they had al-
ready succeeded in placing the blame for
narcotics distribution on organized crime
and the appearance of these new drugs
might raise unwanted questions about their
origins.
^’Similarly, before Sejna left in 1 968, the
Czechs had appropriated the money for the
construction of a new center in Czechoslo-
vakia where the best minds inv olv ed in drugs,
chemical and biological warfare, and nuclear
radiation could be concentrated.
"Ministry of Defense, General Staff,
Military Intelligence Administration, Air
Force, Health Administration, Central
Military Hospital, Administrative Organs
Department, and military counter-intelli-
gence.
42 In a Letter to the Editor, Washington
Times , March 19,1994, Roger Hall writes:
“Information on prisoners of war and those
missing in action in Vietnam is being with-
held from the public in defiance of Presi-
dent Clinton’s order that it be declassified
by Veteran’s Day 1 993.
“The Library of Congress, which prints
the Guide to Vietnam-Era Documentation
Collection in Microfilm and coverts the
POW/MIA documents received from the
Department of Defense (DoD) to micro-
form, is not able to identify material from
the National Security Agency (NS A) that
DoD alleges was sent there. NSA has in-
structed DoD not to label any of the NSA
material received from it as either NSA or
CIA, and to disinform the public of its ex-
istence and how to access that information.
“According to DoD, the NSA docu-
mentation in question is available at the
Library of Congress, but the material has
been deliberately mislabeled and scattered
into different categories. Those who wish
access to these documents are thwarted by
the deliberate and malicious concealment
of information. There is no way for any av-
erage citizen — or expert — doing research on
the PO VV/M I A issue to find this particular
material.
“This documentation originally con-
sisted of 150 boxes of NSA material that
verified testimony by former Air Force and
NSA analyst Jerry Mooney that there were
Americans in captivity who were not re-
turned. There are intelligence documents
in those boxes that Mr. Mooney didn’t know
about that also verify his testimony.
“This information has been declassified;
it is not the property of the NSA any more.
The DoD is interfering with the property
of American citizens and our right to know.
T his information was available during the
Vietnam War and was not forwarded by
NSA to the proper decision makers at the
time (as Mr. Mooney’s testimony before the
Senate select committee on POWs/MIAs
reveals), and it is being withheld again by
deceit to prevent people from knowing the
wrong that has been done.
“This denial of access is in deliberate de-
fiance of the presidential order to declassify
the materials, and those materials are being
hidden by the verv people entrusted to assist
in making them available. This is being done
to hide the fact that Americans were held
when the public believes that all POWs were
released.
“We don’t want classified information
on what the NSA is doing now. We want
in PO W information that has already been
declassified and supposedly released to the
public. The NSA is exerting control ov er
information on abandoned U.S. military
men who it could have saved. Because of
N S As arrogance, it failed in its responsibil-
ity, and now its interference with documents
compounds the original wrong.
“Task Force Russia, the DoD group that
is looking into the possibility of POWs hav-
ing been sent to Russia, was working under
the assumption that Mr. Mooney’s testi-
mony was not credible because the records
Mr. Mooney described could not be found.
That information was found and withheld
from the investigators looking for the link
between Vietnam and the former Soviet
Union. These investigators were trying to
find out if specifically identified men were
sent from Vietnam to the Soviet Union.
“In addition to this, Ed Ross, director of
the Defense Department’s POVV-M IA of-
fice, misinformed Congress in his testimony
before the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee
on Feb. 10. He said that all POW/MIA
information had been declassified and that
more than 1 .5 million pages of documenta-
tion were available to the public. The Li-
brary of Congress estimates that it had only
750,000 pages as of February [ 1994 1.
“There is much more that the president,
Congress and the Public are being deceived
about.
“This wrong must be corrected; our
elected government should not be defied by
government employees. The President has
declassified these documents; the public has
a right to know.
^Details on these allegations are
presented in Joseph D. Douglass Jr.,
“Malfeasance in the Search for Ameri-
can POW/M I As,” Conservative Re-
view, November/December 1993.
44 U.S. Senate, Select Committee on
POW/M I A Affairs, Report of the U.S.
Senate Select Committee on POW/M l/l
Affairs, January 25, 1993, P.56.
4 MTiis is sad and deplorable, but nev-
ertheless true. The deliberate efforts by
U.S. officials to sabotage information
and sources can be documented. Mid-
level officials, including those within
U.S. intelligence, have lied, misrepre-
sented information, and falsified the
record in an effort to sabotage infor-
mation. According to the reports in The
New York Times, this also appears to be
true of State Department officials. Sec:
Steven Greenhouse, “New Douhts
Cast On P.O.VV. Effort: Cable Says
Russians Asserted U.S. Officials Dis-
couraged Full Release of Data.” The
New York Times, February 18, 1994.
46
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
Every law , or resolution having the force
of law, shall relate to but one subject , and
that shall be expressed in the title.
Constitution of the
Confederate States of America
Article I, section 9, clause 20
A representative body , composed principally
of respectable yoemanry is the best possible .
security to liberty. Any law rendering
property insecure , would be injurious to
Melancton Smith, 1788
Bella Abzug
The First Jewish Woman in Congress
Profile of a Destroyer
by
SFC Steven M. Barry, USA (Ret.)
[ Jews] have always been prominent
in mildly leftist organizations such as
Americans for Democratic Action [ sic! ]
while Jewish labor leaders were among
the most militant... [and Jews were] also
prominent in the Communist supported
Progressive Party... and among the
supporters and leaders of the radical left
( old left perhaps more than new left
[sic]). At one time Jews comprised an
estimated 50% of the Communist Party
USA. 4
Seldom, in this degenerate age, is there much cause for celebration. So, when
an “old Stalinist war horse” 1 dies 1 throw away the cork on my Bushmill’s Single
Malt and privately toast the long overdue dirt bath of yet another Destroyer. In
saner times, Bella Abzug, a “leading feminist,” would have been silenced. Regret-
tably, burning witches is no longer tolerated in polite society. Now they may
inflict upon us “women’s way of knowing,” maliciously run for political office,
scream anti-Constitution obscenities at the full moon, and spread malignant
‘empowered’ havoc about us at will.
The Unmentionable Problem
B orn Bella Savitsky on 24 July
1920, she is hailed in the syr-
upy wire releases and weeping
“news” magazines as “the first Jewish
woman in Congress.” The establish-
ment press made a rather special point
of clubbing us over the head with that
little tidbit. Not to enlighten us, mind
you, but to silence any candid discus-
sion about her history through the im-
plied threat of “anti-Semitism.”
Throughout this century, America
has had an obvious, yet “unmention-
able” problem with Jewish spearheaded
political and social agitation. The ca-
reer of the late Bella Abzug illustrates
this problem. Had her true loyalties
been openly and honestly discussed,
they could have had less serious conse-
quences because there would have been
more resistance to them. This includes
the loyalties of all those “Great Firsts,”
whose careers would have been hon-
estly examined under a more focused
glass. Further, you’re forbidden to even
think about the consequences of what
“the first whoever” has deliberately in-
flicted upon us — or why, or the motive
behind their destruction. And because
any honest discussion
about the spread of
collectivism in
America cannot be di-
vorced from its Jewish
influences, let’s defy
our (the Anti-
Defamation League of
B’nai B’rith) and their
Osnaz 2 (Jewish De-
fense League goon
squads) and talk about
it.
Only a minority of ” “ “
Jews arc Communists, although the vast
majority (90% according to a Jewish
poll) are liberals who see it their duty
to inflict their notion of good upon the
innocent. 1 Yet, many observingjews are
quite conservative. Bella Abzug was
one of the notable exceptions. She was
raised an Orthodox Jew, which may
explain why she always wore those ab-
surd hats. There is, however, a histori-
cal pattern of Jewish political activity
that cannot be ignored.
Throughout this
century, America has
had an obvious, yet
“unmentionable”
problem with Jewish
spearheaded political
and social agitation.
Within any radical socialist “move-
ment” or organization a very large per-
centage of the founding leadership,
organizers, and activists will be found
to be Jewish.
...Americans of Jewish background
were disproportionately represented
among the leadership and cadres of the
[New Left] Movement until the mid 60s.
At the time they constituted under 3
percent of the population of the United
States, and about 10
___________ percent of the students
at colleges and
universities. Yet, they
provided a majority of
its most active
members and perhaps
even a larger proportion
of its top leadership.
They also provided a
very significant
proportion of the
intellectual
community’s most
vocal supporters of the
student movement."
The significance about Jcwish-led
New Left Bolshevism during the early
1960s is that, unlike gentile Bolsheviks,
who (albeit stupidly) rationalized their
nihilistic radicalism as rebellion against
their bourgeois roots, Jewish Bolsheviks,
on the other hand, were simply carry-
ing on the work of their Old Left (in
many instances, Communist) parents.
“Indeed Jewish radicals saw their par-
ents as somewhat to the left of them in
Vol. IV, No. 3
47
The RESISTER
many ways. [!j Among Jews the more
radical the parents, the more radical the
young person.” 6 Those “parents...
‘somewhat’ to the left” of their 1960s
“New Left” Bolshevik children, were
themselves the children of nihilist and
socialist Jews who fled Russia for
America around the turn of the cen-
turv in order to avoid the logical (and
justifiable) consequences of their revo-
lutionary activities.
There is another pattern inherent to
|ewish Bolshevism that demands atten-
tion; indeed, for practical purposes, de-
fines jewnsh Bolshevism — the degree
to which Jewish radicals are observant
(i.e. religious) or not.' The greater the
secularism of individual Jews, the higher
is their proportion ot leadership in, and
participation in the agitprop activities
of, communistic organizations and
movements. 8 This fact is of far greater
importance in understanding the his-
torical context of American Jewish Bol-
shevism than it may appear at first
blush. Not for its religious implications,
but for its Communist propaganda
value, being Jewish is the perfect cam-
ouflage for any American Communist. '
Following the 1917 Russian Revo-
lution, anti-Communist opposition in
America was grudgingly permitted if
the argument was kept academic, but
dissent was immediately visited by a
torrent verbal and printed abuse if any-
one started pointing fingers. Through-
out the 1920s and ’30s, anyone who
commented about an observable pat-
tern and juxtaposed the words “Jew”
and “Communist” in the same sentence
was branded an “anti-Semite,” 10 one of
many stock Communist sympathizer’s
swear words. Following Roosevelt’s
War, “Anyone who opposes the Ameri-
can Communist is at once branded as a
‘disrupter,’ a ‘Fascist,’ a ‘Red baiter,’ or
a ‘Hitlerite,’ and becomes the object of
a systematic campaign of character as-
sassination.” 1 1 The difficulty in point-
ing out by name Communists who are
Jews, is that observing Jews will come to
their defense simply because Jewish
Communists (who are by definition
atheists) are still considered by obser-
vant Jews to be Jews. 12 That is because
Jews consider themselves to be a Na-
tion unto themselves, whose loyalty is
to Israel, 11 not a religion, 14 nor a dis-
tinct race. 1 ' No less than U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, a stri-
dent Zionist, wrote in his hook Zion-
ism and the American Jews , “Let us
recognize that we Jews are a distinct
nationality of which everv Jew, what-
ever his country, his station, or shade
of belief, is necessarily a member.” (An-
other first! Justice Brandeis, appointed
in 1916 by Fabian Socialist sympathizer
Woodrow Wilson, was “...the first Jew
to sit on the Court.”) 16 This is the func-
tional equivalent of Catholics (whose
noumenal “nation” is the Church) who
stupidly defend or engage in the tor-
turous rationalization of the subversive
activities ofjesuit, Maryknoll, Domini-
can, and Franciscan “Liberation Theo-
logians” (read Communists) simply
because those Communists are Catho-
lic ‘priests,’ ‘nuns,’ or laity. 1 ' In fact,
there’s not one whit of difference in so-
cialist political outcome between secu-
lar Jewish Bolshevism, or the heresies
of either Catholic “Liberation Theol-
ogy” or the Protestant “Social Gospel.” 18
To give one example of how Jewish
camouflage works for
American Commu-
nists, in 1946 the
Anti-Defamation
League promoted the
Fair Employment
Practices Commission
(FEPC) in New York
state. The FEPC re-
quired all businessmen
to hire and promote
employees according
to the orders of an ap-
pointive board em-
powered to fine or
imprison any em-
ployer who did not ac-
cede to the hoard’s
dictates. Coincident
with the FEPC ‘law’ was a proposed
federal ‘law’ to make “any derogatory
reference to a Jew a criminal offense.” 10
(And you thought “hate crime” was a
current event!) “The Communist Party
championed it with daily headlines in
its press,” and suddenly there was an
influx of “Jews” demanding jobs “in de-
sirous positions by the ruse of demand-
ing racial ‘fairness.’” 20 The ADL failed
to mention that the equivalent of FEPC
and “hate speech” ‘laws’ were already
in operation in Stalin’s Soviet Union.
No matter. We’re forbidden to take
note of such ‘coincidences.’
Bellas Bolshevism
I t’s no accident that Bella Savitsky
attended Hunter College in New
York City’ between 1938 and 1942.
Hunter College, at the time she at-
tended, was an all female and predomi-
nantly Jewish institution. 21 It has been
a leading “magnet school” for the col-
lectivist-minded from at least the late
1920s to the present. Is faculty 22 was
(and still is) composed of everything
from outright Communists, to politi-
cal Zionists 2 ' and United Nations quis-
lings. Overt Communist agitation at
Hunter College began in 1933 when
America’s fourth dictator, 24 Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, recognized his dic-
tator pal Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union
as a legitimate nation. To give you an
idea of the quality of Bella Savitsky’s
“education” at I lunter College, when in
1 944, at the peak of Roosevelt’s War, it
was thought necessary to shop around
army officers to universities to “inspire
fresh zeal for the War Effort [why was
it waning?]... The man for the job | at
Hunter College] was Capt. Orest’
Shestov of the Red
Army.” 2 * 5 1 lunter girls
responded better to a
Red A r m v o f fi c e r
than to an American
Officer.
Poor Bella. She
missed all the gushing
over the presence of
one of Stalin’s Glavnoe
Razvedyvatelnoe
Uprav/enie 2( ' of fi c c r s
whipping up “antifas-
cist” fervor at her alma
mater. But she was
there in spirit, work-
ing for “peace” 2 ' at an-
other C o m m u n i s t
stronghold, Columbia
University. There, indulging her willful
destructive urges — “When I was ten, I
had decided that I wanted to be a law-
yer.” 28 — she studied law. She married
some compliant weenie named Martin
Abzug in 1945. 20 She passed the New
York state bar in 1947.
Bella immediately joined the Na-
tional Lawyer’s Guild. The National
Lawyers Guild’s purpose, as stated in
its 1937 organizing charter, is to act as
“a professional organization which shall
function as an effective social force in
the service of the people to the end that
human rights shall he regarded as more
sacred than property rights.” 10 (Now,
there's a ‘coincidence!’ The operative
bromide of the Negro “civil rights”
movement was “Human Rights Over
Property Rights!”) 11 Formed as an ad-
Throughout the
1920s and 30s, any-
one who commented
about an observable
pattern and juxta-
posed the words “Jew”
and “Communist” in
the same sentence
was branded an “anti-
Semite,”
48
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
junct to and wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Soviet-controlled International
Labor Defense, 32 the National Lawyers
Guild’s statement of purpose was about
as blatant an admission of Communist
sympathy as one can proclaim without
having a hammer and sickle embossed
on one’s stationary. Bella’s ‘work’ for
and lifelong membership in the Na-
tional Lawyers Guild is best summed
up by the 1950 report of the House
Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties:
The National Lawyers Guild is the
foremost legal bulwark of the
Communist Party, its front
organizations, and controlled unions.
Since its inception it has never tailed to
rally to the legal defense of the
Communist Party and individual
members thereof, including known
espionage agents. It has consistently
fought against national, State, and local
legislation aimed at curbing the
Communist conspiracy. It has been most
articulate in its attacks upon agencies of
the Government seeking to expose or
prosecute the subversive activities of the
Communist network.. .. n
Bella Abzug earned her reputation
as “bellowing Bella” during her work
for the National Lawyers Guild while
defending Communists. Her undis-
guised Communist sympathies and
strident defense of Communists in the
courtroom also brought her to the at-
tention of the CIA, who opened a file
on her in 1953. They also opened her
mail, which was mostly addressed to
(and from) the Soviet Union. 34
NLG courtroom tactics, among
such other obnoxious practices as coach-
ing witnesses to be uncooperative and
hostile, relied upon recourse to Fifth
amendment pleading, 3s steering the
trial into “argumentative extraneous
matters,” and turning proceedings into
shouting matches. “NLG lawyers
seemed to thrive on contempt citations
brought against them.” 36
The real nature of the [National
Lawyers | Guild’s philosophy comes into
sharp focus during court procedures.
Almost without exception, its leading
members... seek to bring the court and
its procedures into disrepute. They
substitute insult for argument, resort to
intimidation of judges by picket lines,
parades, and personal abused'
The National Lawyers Guild has
never in its history deviated by one
comma from the Communist Party line.
And just to put the above in judicial
“activist” perspective, Thurgood
Marshall, “America’s first Negro Su-
preme Court justice,” (another first!)
who was appointed to the Supreme
Court by Lyndon Johnson, was also a
member of the National Lawyers
Guild. (Are you beginning to notice
some patterns emerging?)
Even as a university agitprop babe,
Bella drew attention to herself. “As early
as 1941... [Savitsky] achieved recogni-
tion for her leftist activities. On March
1 8, 1 94 1 , the Ne' w York Post noted that
she ‘generally followed the Communist
Party line’” 38 whenever ‘liberal’ 1 lunter
girls found some newly discovered ‘in-
justice’ to protest on cue from the
CPIJSA. By 1948 she
was already an official
National Lawyers
Guild representative
at the International
Association of Demo-
cratic Lawyers 3 '' meet-
ing in Prague,
Czechoslovakia, scant
months after the Communist coup led
by Prime Minister Klement Gottwald.
At the IADL meeting Bella cospon-
sored a resolution denouncing “perse-
cutions directed against the leaders of
the American Communist Party by the
Government of the U.S.A.” 40
Bella returned from Communist
Czechoslovakia and began represent-
ing American Communists called to
testify before the McCarthy commit-
tee, and during that time she was also
the defense attorney for “New York
State teachers... accused of leftist activi-
ties by the Rapp-Coudert state legisla-
tive committee.” 41 During the 1950s,
she also became an activist for the Citi-
zens Committee of the Upper West
Side, the National Council of the Arts,
Sciences and Professions, the Ameri-
can Committee for Protection of For-
eign Born, and Veterans of the Abraham
Lincoln Brigade. 42 All Communist
Party USA front organizations and
Moscow surrogates.
Bella’s activities in support of the
American Committee for the Protec-
tion of Foreign Born are of special im-
portance, because this group was a
successor to the International Labor
Defense’s Councils for Protection of
Foreign Born, which was itself a splin-
ter organization of International Red
Aid. International Red Aid was formed
in 1922 by the Soviet COMINTERN
to promote Communist immigration
and nationality policies, particularly in
the United States. “By 1932 and 1933,
the International Labor Defense was
so widely known as an arm of the Com-
munist International that the Councils
[for Protection of Foreign Born| were
discarded in favor of a new organiza-
tion, the American Committee for
Protection of Foreign Born.” 43 One of
the founding purposes of the ACPFB
was to fight the deportation of foreign
Communists (most of whom were
Jews, and all of whom were stridently
defended by the Anti- Defamation
League in the press and the National
Lawyers Guild in the courts), because
a large number of CPUS A officials in
the 1920s and 1930s
were not naturalized
American citizens.
Other ACPFB
platforms were so-
called open borders,
unconstrained immi-
gration, and abolish-
ing internal security
laws. If you’ve ever wondered why
America’s immigration laws are now a
shabby farce, it’s because the CPUSA
run American Committee for Protec-
tion of Foreign Born was greatly f avored
by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 44 and
numerous fellow traveler senators and
representatives who were responsible
for immigration ‘legislation’ through-
out the 1940s and ’50s.
During the 1940s and 1950s, Bella
Savitsky was a strident Zionist. Little
wonder, given the ecstatic press stories
about the glories of communistic life
on the kibbutzump " her own Commu-
nist upbringing, and Ilaganah’s mur-
derous terror campaign against the
British and Palestinians. The terrorist
campaign in Palestine was perpetrated
by Konzentrationlager survivors who
were miracled there via the “Exodus”
following their resurrection from — by
their own, and Stalin’s, accounts — the
deaths of more Jews than ever existed
in all of Europe (Russia is not Eu-
rope). 46 No matter. The world — the
U.S. especially — has never been short
of “holocaust survivors.” Even the
Vatican recently rolled over on its back,
exposed its belly, and peed on itself. I
mean, who else but The Untouchables
could get away with looting the gold
reserves of Switzerland, the country
The world — the
U.S. especially — has
never been short of
“holocaust survivors.”
Vol. IV, No. 3
49
The RESISTER
with the world’s last gold standard cur-
rency — must be another ‘coinci-
dence.’ 4 ' Strangely, Bella s Zionist
passion waned in 1967 when she sup-
ported Black Caucus resolutions con-
demning Israel as an imperialist
aggressor.’ 48 Israel, a continuously
flushing socialist toilet that “disappears”
thousands of millions of tax-extorted
Federal Reserve 49 scrip annually (which,
if outcome is a reflection of intent, en-
sures that the Arabs remain on the edge
of blind derangement) to prevent its
collapse from its own internal socialist
contradictions, began supporting CIA
anti-Soviet imperialist adventures in
the Middle East, and providing arms
technology stolen from America to all
and sundry who could afford it. There’s
just no pleasing some people.
Women Strike For Peace
B ella was a founding member of
Women Strike For Peace in
1 961. WSP deserves special at-
tention because it was not only a Com-
munist front, it was also an “activation
cell” for the feminist movement of the
late 1 960s. Women Strike for Peace was
the brainchild of Dagmar Wilson. Ac-
cording to Dagmar, she was just lolling
in her Georgetown backyard one balmy
September afternoon when it suddenly
occurred to her to “call up a few
friends,”' 0 (who included Bella) to dis-
cuss “peace” and nukes; who then called
their friends, “and they all wrote letters
to friends in other cities.”' 1 Suddenly
(note the very tight scheduling here), in
November 1961, 50,000 unsupervised
females ‘spontaneously’ stampeded
through 60 American cities waving
signs and babies while weeping and
moaning ( only ) about American
nuclear testing. ( Does any of this sound
familiar?)
I n J a n u a r y 1 962 , a fte r fa n n i ng p 1 a c -
ards and babies in the direction of the
White I louse. Women Strike for Peace
spontaneously miracled into existence
Women s International Strike for Peace
in all Western nations. This interna-
tional woman s way of knowing was
rewarded by the Soviets in February
1962 when 70 Women s International
Strike for Peace members were invited
to a private meeting with the Soviet
ambassador at the United Nations. Not
to be outdone, in July 1962, the Soviet
Women s Committee hosted Dagmar
and 11 other extremely earnest ' 2
Women Strike for Peace members in
Moscow at a Communist Party Soviet
Union sponsored Kaffeeklatsch for
Peace. Afterward, CPUSA spokesman
Arnold Johnson enthused about
Women Strike for Peace as “the most
vital mass force in the peace movement
of our country f sic! J today. “
The WSP-Soviet Women s Com-
mittee Moscow Kaffeeklatsch (incon-
ceivably) attracted the attention of the
House Committee on Un-American
Activities.' 3 All Women Strike for Peace
members called to testify before I ICUA
— on the advise of their National Law-
yers Guild and ACLU lawyers — pled
the 5th when asked about their affilia-
tion with the Communist Party USA.^ 4
Except Dagmar. She quibbled that ev:
ery woman in Women Strike for Peace
was a leader (in a leaderless move-
ment " that claimed over 1 00,000 con-
cerned women ) so therefore she was
helpless to prevent, but Certainly not
adverse to, having Communists in po-
sitions of leadership in WSP.' 6
What has all this to do with Bella
Abzug? For ten years, since its found-
ingin 1961 until she infected Congress
in 1971, she was the political action di-
rector for Women ^
Strike for Peace. She
was therefore respon-
sible for the shift in
political focus of WSP
away from disarming
America in the name
of peaceful coexist-
ence with the Soviet
Union (which has al-
ways meant the U.S.
surrenders to commu-
nism), toward bla-
tantly adhering to | the
United States | En-
emies” in Vietnam,
“giving them Aid and
Comfort. You might
think that was treason.
But our ‘government’
does not declare war _____
on Communists. By
not declaring war, our ‘government’
“discovered” that it could not prosecute
treason. Therefore Hanoi Jane and all
her commie pals who went on pilgrim-
age to North Vietnam were not trai-
tors. Treason is not allowed by our
nomenklatura. It draws too much atten-
tion to them. (You see now, don’t you?)
In 1965 a Woman Strike for Peace
delegation met with a delegation of
North Vietnamese women in Jakarta
and pledged to mobilize American
women to work with dedication to stop
the war in Vietnam. (They love mobi-
lizing people.) This pleased the C PUS A
so much that Party rags began featur-
ing glowing reviews of WSP anti-war
agitprop for peace, and this pleased the
WSP so much they began taking out
full page ads in the Party rags. During
the late 1960s Bella’s gang figured
prominently in both anti-war (in the
Left lexicon that means engage in trea-
son) demonstrations and so-called civil
rights activism. Dagmar was rewarded
for her anti-war efforts by being per-
mitted to travel to Hanoi on several oc-
casions to provide Aid and Comfort
to the enemy without so much as a
whimper or sideways glance from the
State Department.
ivis. noisni
Washingtc
Ms
All Women Strike
for Peace members
called to testify before
HCUA — on the ad-
vise of their National
Lawyers Guild and
ACLU lawyers —
pled the 5th when
asked about their af-
filiation with the
Communist Party
USA.
Ms. Bolshie Goes to
Washin^on
eanwhile, Bella was working
behind the scenes at her
National Lawyers Guild
New York law practice rounding up le-
gal support and raising bail money for
Women Strike for Peace protesters.
— In 1966, with malice
aforethought, she
helped organize the
National Organiza-
tion for Women. In
Bella s own words, I
have spent much of my
life working outside
the establishment, or-
ganizing and helping to
ere a te p ressu res fo r co n -
s tractive change...
| and | as a three- term
Congresswoman... I
have also worked in-
side the establishment,
and I am convinced of
the necessity for doing
both. '' [Emphasis
added.] In other
___ _ words folks, the clas-
sic Leninist tactic of
Pressure From Below, Pressure From
Above. (There is nothing in the Na-
tional Organization for Women
agenda that is not inherently commu-
nistic.)
During 1968 Bella was an agitator
and organizer for Allard Lowenstein s
dump Johnson movement.
Lowenstein was one of those flaming
liberal busybodies (what Communists
call useful idiots ) who stuck his nose in
50
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
every movement that was carefully
calculated to further weaken America
for the final kill. With covert support
from the Kennedy dynasty he gained a
House seat in 1968, whereupon he
immediately introduced legislation to
abolish the House Committee on Un-
American Activities to protect free-
doms under the First Amendment.
He and Bella were great pals.
Bella Abzug hated America passion-
ately, so she ran for Congress. As a
Democrat, of course. (All the Commu-
nists in Congress were allowed to dress
in Democrat drag.) Her 1970 New
York 19th district campaign was sup-
ported by the CPUSA, multitudinous
peace organizations, Woman s Lib-
eration Forces, Women Strike for
Equality (a Women Strike for Peace
offshoot), and the radical leftist New
Democratic Coalition." 1 ' At the NDC
convention the subject of North Viet-
nam s pending victory in Vietnam came
up. ( They knew!) Bella opposed allow-
ing Vietnamese anti -Communist refu-
gees into America. They deserve the
punishment that awaits them, she an-
nounced. 60
My campaign workers came mostly
from the ranks of the new women ac-
tivists and men [sic J involved in the
feminist and antiwar movements as well
as from the many community organi-
zations working on neighborhood and
city problems, she wrote. 61 As I write
this I m looking at some era photo-
graphs. Photos of “new women activ-
ists;” sloppy, screaming, bra-burning,
(and if you stretch your imagination)
females, who are anything but sex ob-
jects.” Oh, and the ‘men’ (let’s just call
them what they are — faggots) “in-
volved” in their “movement.” Neatly
dressed (and hopelessly dim) Women
Strike for Peace gals, still waving their
signs and babies and demanding
America’s defeat in Vietnam. Anti-war
“activists;” scraggly, yelling, drugged (but
interspersed among them are neatly
attired, clean, alert Party agitators). And
mobs of slovenly refugees from the
“War on Poverty;’’ surly, menacing, and
boiling with “rage” that welfare didn’t
resolve their systemic behavior prob-
lems. In a rational world Bella would
have been fitted with concrete over-
shoes and dumped into the East River.
But alas, the election was her payoff for
decades of devoted, selfless service for
“peace.”
In November 1970, in a demonstra-
tion of their focused loathing for
America, the New York 19th district
voted that loudmouthed obnoxious
bullying bitch 62 into Congress. The
early 1970s were transition years in
American politics. The Old Left in
Congress, whose ‘legislation’ over the
course of 40 years sent America down
an irreversible 61 path
to socialist totalitari-
anism secured by ac-
tivist courts and ruled
by a cancerous federal
Leviathan, began to be
replaced by their nihil-
istic New Left spawn,
who were itching for
social equality and
social and economic
justice for womyn
and the poor. They in-
cluded envious para-
sitic feminists who
demanded full equal-
ity within institutions
they could never have
created themselves (like Bella, and
Patricia Schroeder), and communistic
Negro tribalists who were intent on
Africanizing America (like Ron
Dellums); there not being any effective
difference between the two notions.
On her first day in Congress Bella
proved her value to the Party. She in-
troduced a resolution demanding the
complete withdrawal of American
forces from Vietnam by 4 July 1971,
then appeared on the steps of the Capi-
tol with Shirley Chisholm who, before
a Women Strike for Peace mob of 600
unsupervised females, administered a
“special peace oath” to Bella. It was typi-
cal Communist “guerrilla theater,” but,
then, Chisholm knew which Party had
really secured her election.
Shirley Chisholm was — you
guessed it — another first! “The first
Negro woman elected to Congress.” 64
A welfare socialist (there’s a shock), she
was a pioneer of ‘child care.’ Not by
real parents or families (as opposed to
sexually irresponsible sluts with bas-
tards), but socialized ‘child care’ by the
state (in favor of sexually irresponsible
sluts with bastards). Always on the alert
for a creative Destroyer, Brooklyn
white ‘liberals’ — who have since fled
what they created in Brooklyn — had
secured her 1964 election to the New
York State Assembly, where she spon-
sored ‘legislation’ promoting socialized
“day care” and all-day kindergartens,
tax-extorted slum insurance, and “open
admissions” to city colleges for Negroes
and Puerto Ricans because, generally,
they couldn’t meet scholastic stan-
dards. 6 "
Ini 968 a “special” committee of the
Democratic National Committee 66 met
in Brooklyn to select a Negro to be the
first Brooklvn Negro
elected to Congress.
Chisholm narrowly
edged out James
f armer, who was the
paid organizer of
“spontaneous rage”
(read riot, arson and
insurrection) that al-
ways followed in the
wake of Martin
Luther King, Jr.’s, lo-
cal campaigns of “non -
violen ce. ” ( Farm er was
recently awarded the
Presidential Medal of
Freedom by 4 Pres i -
dent’ Clinton lor his
“work” lor “civil rights.”) After Brook-
lyn elected her to the House, she be-
came a strident supporter of the Black
Panthers and the so-called “anti war”
movement. During Chisholm’s rigged
campaign Bella “led a Women Strike
lor Peace delegation to her office to
urge her to include a call for U.S. with-
drawal from Vietnam in her maiden
speech,” 6 ' which she obligingly did.
That’s how she landed on the Capitol
steps administering a “special peace
oath” to Bella. Considering Bella’s six-
year performance in the House, she
obviously felt that oath superseded the
oath she was administered by legitimate
authority.
Not surprisingly, given her loathing
of the U.S. military (which was killing
her Communist heroes in Vietnam and
keeping her Soviet pals at bay in Eu-
rope), her first target was to gain a seat
on the House Armed Services Com-
mittee. “I tried hard to get on the Armed
Services Committee, an occult male
domain... 1 felt it was important to get
to the source of the military overspend-
ing that was depriving us of funds for
our real needs, and also to demonstrate
that as a woman and a peace activist I
could bring to the committee a differ-
ent concept of what was required to as-
sure our national security.” 68 [Emphasis
added.]
In 1971 , Bella Abzug stated that the
proposed Equal Rights amendment
Bella Abzug hated
America passionately,
so she ran for Con-
gress. As a Democrat,
of course. (All the
Communists in Con-
gress were allowed to
dress in Democrat
drag.)
Vol. IV, No. 3
51
The RESISTER
“would make... compulsory military
service available [sic! J to women...” 69
and praised the idea ofwomen in com-
bat. One can only shudder when one
contemplates what “different concept”
she felt was “required” of the military
to “assure our (meaning womyn and
The Children and The Poor) security.”
Perhaps what the military has become;
a stupidly obedient social engineering
experiment “lead” by starred moral
cowards.
Fortunately, at the time, Armed Ser-
vices Committee chairman F. Edward
I I bert knew about her Communist
background (and her CIA file — which
included volumes of photocopies of her
opened Soviet mail), and refused her a
seat on the committee along with ac-
cess to the classified material that seat
would have entailed. However, she ex-
tracted her revenge for being denied
the opportunity to destroy the U.S.
military and leak classified material to
her pen pals in the Soviet Union when
Carter brought his freak show to D.C..
Meanwhile, Rep. II hert, in a fit of
blithering tolerance (or racial blackmail),
approved the seat of “the first Negro
member of the Armed Services Com-
mittee;” Communist sympathizer Ron
Dell urns." Two years later, Patricia
Schroeder, “the first woman member
of the Armed Services Committee,”
infected that committee with mad cow
disease.
During her six-year reign of terror
in Congress, that “horrible old hag” 1
championed every “cause” and “move-
ment” that was calculated to leave
America a moral, cultural, economic
and political ruin. Bella was a keynote
speaker at every “anti-war” demonstra-
tion in Washington during 1971 and
1972. In April 1971, addressing one
mob she declared, “ Y our presence here
today means that you’re going to force
the Congress to undeclare the war.”' 2
She played a significant role during the
“May Day” demonstrations, and went
so far as to tell police that the demon-
strators were her personal guests as long
as they were in Washington. “While
they paraded under Viet Cong flags and
chanted obscenities, she heaped praises
upon them as peace-loving victims of
government oppression.”' 4 At one no-
table “peace rally” in April 1972, Bella
shared the crowd’s attention with a
broadcast from Paris by Mme. Nguyen
Thi Binh, Foreign Minister of the
Communist Provisional Revolution-
ary Government (successor to the Na-
tional Liberation Front), 74 who praised
the mob’s “struggle” for “peace.” Always
loyal to the cause of international
“peace,” she called for congressional
hearings on “war crimes” in Vietnam.
By “war crime” she meant what that
term has always meant, armed opposi-
tion to communism.
Always mindful of
creating new opportu-
nities for fellow trav-
elers, she called for
Congressional probes
of the FBI (they were
investigating Com-
munists!), competency
hearings against Di-
rector Hoover, and
she voted against ap-
propriations for the
House Committee on
Internal Security. (In
1966, “she [ h a d J
signed a statement
that appeared in the
Communist Daily
Worker , which denied that Congress had
any right to investigate subversive ac-
tivities. ”) 7<?
Hostis Humani Generis
I t’s difficult to imagine anything
more evil in its expressed intent
and purpose than the Equal Rights
Amendment. Not surprisingly there-
fore, myriad anarchic “women and
children’s rights” evils were unleashed
upon America in its name by “con-
cerned” legislators. The ERA was not
ratified. But no matter! When the goal
is utter feminization, and thus destruc-
tion of a nation and culture, a little thing
like amendment ratification can’t be al-
lowed to get in the way of “progress.”
And not to be outdone, or appear overly
concerned with our nation’s defense,
the U.S. military obligingly ignored an
objective reality that had worked flaw-
lessly since time immemorial (men and
women are not equal — metaphysically,
epistemologically, psychologically, or
physically), and with some token (and
controlled) dissent from intractable
combat veterans, our Starred Cowards,
on cue, inflicted females upon the stand-
ing military.
When the unseemly issue of draft-
ing females into the military in the
event of war arose, Bella, the consum-
mate “peace” activist, said women
should refuse to register for the draft
until the ERA was ratified. “When
American women have equality of op-
portunity, it will be time enough to talk
about equality of sacrifice,” [!] she
threatened. 76
Remember, this is the same bitch
who said anybody who resists commu-
nism deserves what they get when the
Communists take
over. Today, the U.S.
military is getting ex-
actly what it deserves.
Because its “leaders”
surrendered to the ir-
rationalism inherent
in the proposed ERA
and allowed its ranks
to be infected with fe-
male parasites. Bella
knew what “equality
of opportunity”
meant. The same thing
it has always meant
when screamed by
communists (or femi-
nists, or “civil rights”
agitators, or any other
tribe of losers): “I de mand it because 1
can’t merit it!”
Bella Abzug was a professional de-
stroyer in the best tradition of 20th cen-
tury American Jewish Bolshevism. She
was focused, tireless, spiteful, nihilis-
tic, treasonous, anti-American, and
endlessly vengeful. She inflicted upon
us two daughters. One of her spawn
recently ran for New York City Coun-
cil, which gerrymandered a special “fag”
district. I Iersole platform was — that’s
right — she’s a dyke. In the squalid
world of homosexual politics however,
she was lacking one crucial qualifica-
tion. Her fag opponent managed to
trump her — he was HIV positive.
Bella’s funeral was attended by scores
of somber, dour, black-clad and
behatted witches. While I watched them
weeping, hugging and consoling, I
brooded on stakes and brushwood fag-
gots.
NOTES:
Dr. Susan I luck. Telephone con-
versation with author, 27 March 1998.
John J. Dziak , Chckisty: A History
of the KGB. (Lexington Books, Lexington,
1988.) Osobogo Naznachcn iya (hence,
Osnaz ), who were Troops of Special Pur-
pose for Stalin s Narodnyy Komissariat
Vnutrennikh Del (NKVD) which was the
successor to Lenin s VChcKa. The Osnaz
bv and large... had punitive missions... [such
as] exercising mass repression.... against re-
Bella’s funeral was
attended by scores of
somber, dour, black-
clad and behatted
witches. While I
watched them weep-
ing, hugging and
consoling, I brooded
on stakes and brush-
wood faggots.
52
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
calcitrant or suspect peoples or repression in
newly conquered territories.... (Page 1 14.)
[Which nicely sums up JDL s history and
current activities. In fact, next time swasti-
kas are spray painted on Jewish gravestones,
or Nazis try to stage a rally on a college
campus, it may well he a JDL provocation.
Such demonstrations of hate bring ADL
shrieks and denunciations, immediately fol-
lowed by copycat shrieks and howls out of
groveling gentile fools. It s a really neat ag-
itprop scam. Now Negroes arc horning in
on the scam. Witness the recent epidemic
of black church arsons. It was a Center for
Democratic Renewal hoax, but it did net
them a cool 16 million in brotherly out-
pouring from concerned stupid whites,
and a new federal law (added to the over
10,000 already in existence) to boot. By the
way. I he Constitution — the real one, not
the Nine Robed Dictators — lists only three
federal crimes: piracy, counterfeiting, and
treason. |
“...Jews [in America] had a ‘mis-
sion,’ that they had been set apart by God
Himself to take risks for justice. Joel Elias
Springarn, the founder [sic] of the National
Association for the Advancement of Col-
ored people, was one among many such
people.” Arthur Hertzberg, The Jews in
America. (Simon & Schuster, New York,
1989). Page 151. [Joel Springarn was
NAACP president from 1915 - 1940. He
was succeeded by his son, Arthur, who was
president from 1940 - 1966.| And you
thought NAACP was founded by Negroes.
The “risks for justice” Mr. 1 lertzberg refers
to are “social justice” and “economic jus-
tice.” Do those sound familiar? They should;
they’re the stock Communist bromides that
mean compelled egalitarianism and collec-
tivization of property. N A AC P was founded
in 1909 by white radical socialists (most
prominent among whom was Rabbi
Stephen Wise), most of whom were mem-
bers of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society,
which later became the Student League for
Industrial Democracy, which evolved into
— wait for it — Students for a Democratic
Society in 1962. (Remember them?)
N A AC P’s earliest and most generous source
of funding was the Garland Fund, an orga-
nization created to finance Communist
enterprises. l ime to wake up, folks.
Encyclopaedia Judaica , (Keter
Publishing House Ltd., Jerusalem, 1971).
Volume XVIII, page 823. [ Mildly leftist,
in this example, is a deliber ate distortion and
misrepresentation. (But, after all, it is a Jew-
ish written Jewish encyclopedia.) The
Americans for Democratic Action was the
1947 successor to the Union for Democratic
Action, founded in 1940 as a pro-war po-
litical action committee whose aim was to
ensure the survival of the Soviet Union and
the democratic world. (They meant the
goal of one-world Communism.) Once
Roosevelt decided to squander American
lives to save democracy in Europe (shades
of Wilson!), UDA began domestically to
work for their main goal, the destruction of
the Congress of the United States. LIDA s
guiding genius was Louis Fraina, who was
temporary chairman of the first Commu-
nist convention held in the Western Hemi-
sphere, at Chicago in September, 1919. As
a COMINTERN functionary he helped
draft the COMINTERN platform that
held its purpose was to destroy
parliamentarism. UDA was so blatantly pro-
Communist that it outlived its usefulness
after Roosevelt s War. So it reconstituted
(as most fronts do when they are exposed)
as Americans for Democratic Action, and
immediately became one of the driving
forces calling for the abolition of the House
Committee on Un-American Activities.
Throughout 1950s and 1960s its ideology
was anti-anti-Communism... thoroughgo-
ing internationalism... peaceful coexistence
with the Soviet Union... calls for the total
Welfare State... [and support for] govern-
ment control, planning, financing or take-
over of all facets of health, education,
housing, and industry, business and com-
merce. ADA called for federal totalitar-
ian measures to enforce the so-called civil
rights acts (that abrogated the First, Fifth,
Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments).
And, as Encyclopaedia Judaica so candidly
admits, Jews were prominent in LIDA and
ADA.] See: James Burnham, Does the
ADA Run the New Frontier? National
Review, 7 May 1 963; and A Coming ADA
Government? National Review, 3 Novem-
ber 1964. See also: Francis X. Gannon, Bio-
graphical Dictionary of the Left, Vol. I
(Western Islands, Boston, 1969). Pages 17
-26.
Stanley Rothman, and S. Robert
Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Chris-
tians and the Left (Oxford University Press,
New York, 1982). Page 80. Phis is an ex-
tremely important study of the so-called
“New Left” and its ideological origins, and
it’s an invaluable reference for any serious
study of the willful destruction of America
by “New Left” collectivists. If you’ve ever
wondered why government (which is now
run by New Left 1960s radicals) hates us,
Roots of Radicalism provides some very sig-
nificant clues. It’s also significant that the
radical activists of the 1 960s and 1 970s would
hav e gotten now here without the expressed
consent and overt support of the Establish-
ment Nomenklatura — who ‘coincidentally’
were the New Deal ‘Liberals’ and Commu-
nist sympathizers of the 1930s and 1 940s.
Ibid. Page xiv.
For a brief discussion of secular
Jewish Bolshevist activism, and the conse-
quences to religious Jews in Russia (and even-
tually Nazi Germany), see: Richard Pipes,
Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime (Vintage
Books, New York, 1995). Pages 99-1 14.
Rothman and Lichter, pp. 216 ff.
And also espionage for the Soviet Union.
“Like the majority of Jewish migr s who
left Eastern Europe and Russia in the earlv
waves of the 1 890s, the Holtzbergs were not
an Orthodox family. They observed the
major religious holidays, but not much
more.” Joseph Albright and Marsha
Kunstel, Bombshell: The Secret Story of
America's Unknown Atomic Spy Conspiracy
(Times Books, New York, 1997). Page 16.
The Soviet’s mole and Atomic spy ring’s
organizer at Los Alamos was Ted Hall (nee:
Holtzberg).
If you’re an American Commu-
nist, you don’t even need to be a Jew. Just say
you are and you’re protected. This appears
to be a uniquely American Communist phe-
nomenon, no doubt due to innate (albeit
occasionally misguided) American religious
tolerance. Russian Bolsheviks took exactly
the opposite tack and openly denounced
their Jewishness. Leon Bronstein (Trotsky),
when approached in 1917 by a Jewish del
egation appealing for aid to “help fellow
Jews... flew into a rage: ‘I’m not a jewbut an
internationalist.’” (Pipes, p. 103.)
10 Personally, I don’t buy it. The
overwhelming majority of Jews are not of
the Semitic race. It’s important to remem-
ber that Jews consider themselves (in the
context of the so-called Diaspora) a nomadic
“nation” unto themselves, not simply a reli-
gion, nor a race. Ethnically, most Jews are
Khazars, and break down into Sephardim
(Western Europe, particularly Spain), and
Ashkenazim (Central Europe, particularly
Germany, Poland and Asia, i.e. Russia)
branches according to their religious obser-
vances. Most American Jews are
Ashkenazim. The Communist swear word,
“anti-Semitism,” is intended to mean anti-
Jewish, and is calculated, as an argument
from intimidation, to immediately silence
any discussion or dissent and elicit the terri-
fied response, “I didn’t mean it! Why, some
of mv best friends are Jews!” Which, of
course, immediately undermines any prin-
cipled argument you might have. My re-
sponse to the Smear is always, “On the
whole, I don’t dislike Arabs.”
FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover,
26 March 1947, “Menace of Communism.”
Testimony before the House Committee on
Lin- American Activities. Director Hoover
was always careful to point out that, although
Communist leadership was disproportion-
ately Jewish, most American Jews were loyal
Americans. I agree. He was, however, ran-
corous about Jewish Communists who in-
filtrated and manipulated loyal Jewish
organizations to serv e CPLISA ends. I also
agree. If you’ve ever wondered why Com-
munists continually attack Nazis as “right
wing,” it’s because the commies don’t think
you’re smart enough to notice that both ide-
ologies are socialist. Nazis and Communists
are competitors , not enemies.
“So... I would sav, v ery definitely,
Vol. IV, No. 3
53
The RESISTER
ves — a Jew who calls himself an atheist is
still a Jew. I think I see the road that you are
trying to test out with the “atheism” ques-
tion [pertaining to Jewish Communists].
Logical, but not correct in my opinion. I
recall a conversation I had with a Jewish
man recently. I mentioned that I was Jew-
ish, and his immediate question was, ‘Are
von observant?’ This means, ‘Do you prac-
tice the religion?’ An atheist practices no
religion, but to others in the group he is still a
(nonobservant) Jew... although 1 don’t think
I’ve ever heard the term ‘Jewish atheist.’”
| Emphasis added. | (B.G.. Letter to the au-
thor. 30 March 1998.)
The Jewish self-description as a
“nation” (the nation of Israel) has serious
implications for national security, as the
Pollard case (and other similar cases that
were not publicized) demonstrate. In mid-
1996, Department of Defense Counterin-
telligence drafted a memorandum for DOD
security managers to the effect that particu-
lar attention should he given to the security
clearance reviews of Jewish employees with
an objective eye to divided loyalties vis a vis
the United States and Israel. The memo
was “leaked” to the press. (By who, 1 won-
der.) Well, you’d have thought DOD Cl’s
uniform was a brown shirt with red, white
and black armbands! The ADL immedi-
ately began to shriek “anti-Semitism!” and
the Starred Coward who runs DOD Cl
predictably ordered the retraction of the “in-
sensitive” security memorandum. Mean-
while, Mossad continues to range
unopposed throughout DOD, stealing our
military secrets, while we pay their masters
thousands of millions of dollars per year to
keep their socialist “promised land” propped-
up in the face of Palestinian objections to
having their land and property grabbed.
1 4 “The distinctive character of the
Jew does not arise from his religion. It is
true that his race and religion are indissolu-
bly connected, but whatever be the cause of
this junction of the race with the religion, it
is very certain that the religion alone does
not constitute the people. A believer in the
Jewish faith does not by reason of that fact
become a Jew. On the other hand, however,
a Jew by birth remains a Jew, even though
he abjures his religion.” Leo N. Levi, Presi-
dent, B’nai B’rith, 1900-1904. Quoted in:
Henry Ford, Jr. , The International Jew
(Christian Nationalist Crusade, Los Ange-
les, n.d.). Page 49.
For a remarkably candid book
that discusses the question of Jewish na-
tional assimilation, see: Arthur Hertzberg,
The French Enlightenment and the Jews (Jew-
ish Publication Society, Columbia Univer-
sity Press, New York, 1968). Hertzberg
argues that the French Revolution, which
‘emancipated’ European Jewry, pointed
straight to Jewish persecution in Nazi Ger-
many. “In the early decades of the nine-
teenth century some of the greatest figures
of European socialism, men like Proudhon
and Fourier and even Karl Marx, found rea-
son for doubting or denying entirely that
the Jews could be readily included in their
socialist vision.... Such arguments derived
[from] the Christian idea that the religion
ofthejews... made them an alien element...
reinforced by the pagan cultural argument
that the Jews were by the very nature of
their own culture and even bv their biologi -
cal inheritance an unassimilable element.”
(Page 1 1.) “The era ofWestern history that
began with the French Revolution ended
in Auschwitz.” (Page 5.) Mr. Hertzberg has
a valid point. Throughout Europe,
Bonaparte’s emancipation of the Jews re-
sulted in their being almost universally de-
spised instead of grudgingly tolerated. (Page
6, ff.) Needless to say, it’s a thorny topic.
Perhaps a clue to that phenomenon can be
unraveled from a passage in a work about a
completely dissimilar topic, the study of his-
tory as an empirical scientific discipline.
“Clearly, any attempt at cultural merger and
accommodation is made very difficult if one
side identifies itself by ancestry and geneal-
ogy, thereby defining itself in terms so ex-
clusive that it forever rules out [inclusion].”
3 Kieth Windschuttle, The Killing of His-
tory: How Literary Critics and Social Theo-
rists are Murdering Our Past ( The f ree Press,
New' York, 1 996) Page 279.
Ed Cray, Chief Justice: A Biogra-
phy of Earl Warren (Simon & Schuster, New
York, 1997) Page 261.
For a definitive exposition on
“Liberation Theology” read: Malachi Mar-
tin. The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the
Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church
(Simon Sc Schuster, New York, 1987). pp.
56 ff., and 303 ff. Also: Malachi Martin.
The Keys of 'This Blood: The Struggle for Do-
minion Between Pope John Paul //, Mikhail
Gorbachev , and the Capitalist West (Simon
$ Schuster, New York, 1990) pp. 260-262.
Has anybody else ever noticed
that communistic Negro “civil rights” ac-
tivists are almost always “the Reverend” so-
and-so?
V) Major Robert 11. Williams,
Counterintelligence, USAR. The Anti-
Defamation Teague and its Use in the World
Communist Offensive (The Noontide Press,
Costa Mesa, 1947). pp. 5-6.
Ibid. Page 6.
f ollowing the first major wave of
Jewish immigration to America, Hunter
College offered “free” higher education for
the children of Jewish “refugees” who fled
Russia between 1 890 and 1 920, particularly
those who fled following the (Jewish led)
1905 Revolution. It’s been rumored that
when President Theodore Roosevelt agreed
to allow fresh waves of Jewish “refugees”
from the Pale into the Lbiited States fol-
lowing the 1905 Revolution, Czar Nicho-
las II cabled him; “You’ll be sorry.” Benjamin
Franklin, who spent the American Revo-
lution in Europe cheer leading for French
intervention by negotiating with “bankers”
and sucking up to pull-peddlers, proposed
during the Constitutional Convention that
the Constitution prohibit Jewish immigra-
tion — a viciously suppressed bit of ratifica-
tion history. (Old Ben was a rascal, wasn’t
he?) There were other objections to Jewish
influences, particularly among the clergy.
During the states’ debates, Reverend David
Caldwell (an anti-federalist) argued in the
North Carolina legislature that Jews be
barred from public office on account that
“[this] invitation for Jews and Pagans of
every kind, to come among us...” would,
within time, “...endanger the character of
the United States.... [In] a political view,
those gentlemen who formed this Consti-
tution, should not have given this imita-
tion to Jews and I leathens. All those who
have any religion are against the emigration
of those people from the eastern hemi-
sphere.” Rev. Caldwell, a man of principle
(today he would be called a ‘xenophobe’),
was also the author of the 1 776 North Caro-
lina Constitution amendment that forbade
clergymen from serving in the state legisla
ture. In opposition during the same North
Carolina session, Mr. Samuel Spencer (also
an anti-federalist) countered, “lie | Rev.
Caldwell | asked if it was reasonable to sup-
pose that the people would chuse men with-
out regarding their characters.... ( Jentlcmen
urge that the want of a | religious | test ad-
mits the most vicious characters to offices.”
Pointing out that no religious test or oath
would bind a vicious person, and that “Con-
scientious persons would not take such an
oath,” he averred that lack of a religious test
or oath “...leaves religion on the solid foun-
dation of its own inherent validity, without
any connexion with temporal authority, and
no oppression can take place.” | Bernard
Bailvn, ed. The Debate on the Constitution ,
Volume II ( The Library of America, Vi-
king, NY, 1993) p. 908-909.] Post Ameri-
can Revolution objections to Jewish
immigration were largely grounded on the
Jewish banking practice of usury. As a point
of interest, about the Western third of New
York state was given to the I lolland Land
Company in repayment of Revolutionary
loans. The land was later sold to American
settlers.
Associate editor Dr. Susan I luck
taught geography at I lunter College in the
early 1 960s — before she was “exposed” as
an anti-Communist and purged from fac-
ulty. She once asked a colleague, “Why do
liberals defend Communists?” 1 le cocked
his head in bemusement of her youthful
innocence and replied, “Because as long as
they're [Communists] safe, we’re [‘liberals’]
safe;” as if, without Reds on their left flank,
the ‘liberal’s’ left flank would be exposed. She
also recounted the response of a 1 1 unter girl
to her “unenlightened” remarks about so-
cialism; “Well, my Grandfather got off the
54
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
boat in 1 905 determined to make this a so-
cialist country — and we’re going to do it!”
(Dr. Susan H uck. Telephone conversation
with author, 27 March 1998.)
As opposed to religious Zionists.
It s a very important distinction.
For those of you who just joined
us, America’s first dictator was Abraham
Lincoln. Number two was Theodore
Roosevelt. Number three, Woodrow Wil-
son. [ Although an argument can be made
that he was little more than a simple-minded
‘do-gooder, and therefore easily manipu-
lated by his willfully evil statist- Marxist ‘ad-
visor’ and friend (commissar, would be a more
accurate description) “Colonel” Edward
Mandel I louse.] All presidents since F.D.R.
have been nothing more that popularly
elected dictators who perpetuate Roosevelt’s
“national emergency” of 1 933. Their ‘party’
affiliations alternate between Bolshevik
(Democrat) and Menshevik (Republican)
according to the “outcome-based” political
desires of our self-appointed nomenklatura.
Dr. Susan Huck. “Life Among
the Libs (Hunter College Division).” Na-
tional Review, 7 April 1964. Page 277.
GRU — Soviet military in tell i-
gence.
“Antifascist” and “peace” have al-
ways meant “pro-Communist” and “lack
of opposition to the nomenklatura (the rul-
ing class),’’ respectively.
Abzug, Page 158. | Through care-
less oversight, she failed to mention in her
book her membership in the Communist
run National Lawyers Guild. |
She met him at Columbia. He’s
somewhat of an enigma. All we really know
about him comes from Bella. “He typed my
term papers... agreed that I would work at
my legal career even after we [ sic! ] had chil-
dren... but our informal understanding... has
endured throughout our marriage ”
(Abzug, page 158.) No misunderstanding
who wore the pants in that “family.”
Francis X. Gannon, Biographi-
cal Dictionary of the Left , Vol. IV (Western
Islands, Boston, 1973). Page 193.
n Ira Peck, The Life and Words of
Martin Luther King, Jr. (Scholastic, Inc.,
New York, 1968). United Press Interna-
tional photograph, p. 67. [There must have
been millions printed (I picked mine up last
year)]. This is a slick little propaganda pam-
phlet written at a sixth grade level and tar-
geted against grade school students to
convince them how evil and “racist,” whites
are for introducing Negroes to civilization.
Occasionally you can still find it in grocery
store book racks during Negroes Are Won-
derful Month.
International Labor Defense was
a Soviet COMINTERN umbrella organi-
zation that included both the International
Juridical Association and the National Law-
yers Guild, and counted among its Ameri-
can front organizations the American Civil
Liberties Union and the National Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Colored
People. In 1939 “the ILD conference re-
ceived friendly greetings from the Attorney
General of the United States, Frank
Murphey; LJnited States Senators Claude
Pepper, Lewis B. Schwellenbach, Theodore
Green, and Elbert 7 homas, and U.S. Rep-
resentatives Abe Murdock, Adolph Sabath,
Thomas F. Ford, Michael J. Bradley, and
Sam Massingale.... Involved in I LD’s ‘chari-
table’ drives for the relief of ‘political prison-
ers’ [read Communists arrested for subversion
and espionage ] were Congressmen John T.
Bernard, Usher Burdick, Paul K vale, Jerry
O’Connell, Bryson Scott, and Henry Teigan;
Stella Adler, Marc Blitzstein, Millen Brand,
E.B. Burgum, Malcolm Cowley, Joseph
Curran, Jerome Davis, Archibald MacLeish,
Kirtley Mather, Vincent Sheean, Mary E.
Woolly, and Richard Wright.” (Gannon,
pp. 196-197.) The relationship between
ILD, N LG, and the International Juridical
Association was as follows: “...ILD orga-
nized defenses for Communists and fellow
travelers, the ILJ provided the legal research
for the defense, and the National Lawyers
Guild provided the defense attorneys.”
(Gannon, p. 197.) The International Ju-
ridical Association’s purpose extended “To
the support of workers and their organiza-
tions... against the forces of the state. ..To
help establish [in America] world social and
legal justice.” (Gannon, p. 198.) Guess who,
among other notable ‘progressives,’ was a
member of the IJA? 7 hurgood Marshall.
Yes, that one.
Gannon, page 194.
FrankJ. Donner, The Age of Sur-
veillance: The Aims and Methods of America's
Political Intelligence System. (Alfred A.
Knopf, New York, 1980). Page 271.
[Donner, a Red, is not the least bit sympa-
thetic to domestic political intelligence, be-
cause it was focused most frequently on
Communist fronts and the myriad “move-
ments” those fronts supported. From the
tone of The Age of Surveillance one gets the
unmistakable impression that Donner
would approve of the VChcKa (ADL) and
Ministcrstvo Gosudarstvennoe Bezospasnosti
(FBI) political intelligence operations
against patriotic American anti-Commu-
nists.]
Contrary to popular belief, when
somebody “pleads the Fifth,” they are not
proclaiming their innocence. The no “self-
incrimination” bit was to prev ent torturing
confessions out of people. Legally, it is not
supposed to be taken as implying guilt.
Which is well and proper. But Reds loved to
get their non-Rcd “useful idiots” to “take
the Fifth” alongside them, to provide pro-
tective coloration. It needs to be realized,
however, that innocent defendants rarely
“plead the Fifth.”
Gannon, p. 199.
House Committee on Un-
American Activ ities, 1 950 report, quoted in
Gannon, page 199.
Gannon, III, page 211.
7 he International Association of
Democratic Lawyers was yet another Sov iet
front organization, organized in 1 946 as an
adjunct to the International Labor Defense.
Human Events, 15 May 1971;
quoted in Gannon, III, page 211.
Gannon, Vol. Ill, page 211.
Representative Ron Dellums,
Bella Abzug’s best buddy in Congress, per-
sistently tried to get legislation passed to
award U.S. military veteran’s benefits [!] to
members of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.
I hese were American Communists who
fought against Franco in the Spanish Civil
War. (This obituary is tame compared to
what I have outlined for when that dung-
eater Dellums croaks.)
Gannon, Vol. II, p. 39.
Every year since 1940 until his
merciful death, the cripple F.D.R. would
sent his personal warm greetings to delegates
of American Committee for Protection of
Foreign Born conferences.
Collective farms. Yes, children,
that’s right. Israel began as a Communist
land grab. Just to give you some historical
perspective, the Middle East was pretty
stable until about, oh, 1948. Hey! Isn’t this
the 50th anniversary of Israel’s terrorist-ex-
torted United Nations founding?
The Magic Number is “Six Mil-
lion.” Just kind of glides off the tongue,
doesn’t it? And who, today, would dare ques-
tion it? There is some considerable contro-
versy over an article written by Martin 1 1.
Glynn (former Governor of New York) in
the 3 1 October 1919 issue of The American
Hebrew, which was published by the Ameri-
can Jewish Council. The most often cited
quote describes the “...extermination of 6
million Jews and the holocaust of European
Jewry during the Great War. ’The juxtapo-
sition of “6 million Jews” and “the holo-
caust” and “the Great War,” while an eye
opener, demands (nay, screams for) verifica-
tion. I did manage to obtain excerpts from
the original article. Nowhere, within the
excerpts provided by a Jewish organization,
are “6 million Jews” and “the holocaust”
and “the Great War ’’juxtaposed in the same
sentence, although they are juxtaposed in
contiguous paragraphs. The quote reads: “Six
million men and women are dying from
the lack of necessaries of life; eight hundred
thousand children cry for bread. And this
fate is upon them through no fault of their
own, through no transgression of the laws
of God or man; but through the awful tvr-
anny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish
blood.” The next paragraph begins,” In this
threatened holocaust of human life....”
Glynn (politics unknown — but definitely
a weeping altruist) seems to be referring to
the turmoil that was sweeping through post-
war Germany at the time; the Spartacist
Vol. IV, No. 3
55
The RESISTER
revolution led by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl
Liebknecht, and Franz Mehring (yes, they
were Jews) and the Frcikorps counterrevo-
lution. (The Frcikorps were quickly-orga-
nized from demobilized f Vchrmacbt veterans;
one might even think of them as “mili-
tias.’) Given Glynns tone and rhetoric, he
was apparently equating suppression of Bol-
shevism to systematic repression of Jews.
Given that the Sparticists were led, orga-
nized, financed, and supported by Jews he
may have had a point. Never an organiza-
tion to discount a useful propaganda theme,
the ADL has been using it ever since.
For a general (and sympathetic)
account of the systemic vindictiveness in-
voked in the looting of Switzerland, and
the stripping of Wchrmacht veterans or their
widows of their war pensions, see: Isabel
Vincent, / li tier 's Silent Partners: Swiss Banks ,
Nazi Cold , and the Pursuit of Justice. ( Will-
iam Morrow & Company, Inc., New York,
1997).
Gannon, III, p. 212.
By a strange ‘coincidence,’ the
founding hanks of the Federal Reserve (an
unconstitutional central hank which has no
reserves, is not federal, and is answerable to
nobody), were owned by Jews. Also strangely
enough, those hanks provided substantial
financing to Lenin before and after the
1917 Bolshevik Revolution. You ever won-
der how the Communist Party USA was
financed? Couriers (defendants of the
American Committee for Protection of
Foreign Born — yet another coincidence’)
would deliver millions of U.S. ‘dollars’ from
the Soviet Union to the CPUSA. | See :
Harvey Klehr, John Lari Haynes, &.
Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World
of American Communism (Yale University
Press, New I Iaven, 1995). The authors view
American Communists as “many of them
entirely honorable and decent” (page 323),
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy — who, ob-
jectivelv, is completely vindicated by this
hook’s documentation — as “a political bully”
(page 325), and the John Birch Society,
which has been documenting the Commu-
nist conspiracy in America for decades, as
“an extremist anti -Communist organiza-
tion” (n. page 326).] Even today, the Fed-
eral Reserve ships thousands of millions in
freshly printed Federal Reserve 100 face-
value scrip to “Russia” by the tons monthly.
But that’s OK. It’s “for foreign use only”
scrip. Can’t he ‘spent’ in America. Only
against us.
Alvin Shuster, “Close-Up of a
Peace Striker,” New York Times Magazine , 6
May 1 962. Just to give you some background
on how all this works, Alvin was the son of
George Shuster, dean (and then president)
of Hunter College from 1 939-1960. (I ley!
What a ‘coincidence!’ Bella was a student at
I Iunterfrom 1938-1942!) George Schuster
had a “distinguished’ career as a willing
front-man for whatever Hunter Reds re-
quired of him. He was chairman of the
University of Chicago’s Commission on the
Freedom of the Press, which was dedicated
to censoring anti-Communist writings by
threatening to blackmail publishers as ‘anti-
Semitic.’ He was also an active member of
the Institute for American Democracy,
founded in 1943 as “an anti-anti-Commu-
nist witch hunting offshoot of the... Anti-
Defamation League,” and (among others
— like the National Education Association
and the AFL-CIO s Committee on Politi-
cal Education), the American Jewish Com-
mittee. (Gannon, II, page 547.) Speaking
at a National Education Association con-
vention in 1967, then president of l AD,
Iowa Weslyan College President Franklin
H. Fiddle stated that the purpose of the
Anti- Defamation League’s Institute for
American Democracy was to render “Ex-
tremists” (anti-Communists) in America
“muted and... ineffective.” (Gannon, I,
1 85.) George Shuster was also an advisor to
the National Ad Council, an ADL approved
propaganda arm of the federal ‘government’
which reminds us daily, “Discrimination —
it’s against the law!” Which means, in pre-
cise English, “Individual value judgments
are a federal crime.”
s 1 A. Shuster, op cit.
In January 1962, President
Kennedy called them extremely earnest and
concerned as we all are about the possibility
of nuclear war. (Gannon, II, page 190.)
Although it s difficult to imagine why he
said that. In September 1961 he signed into
federal law Department of State Publica-
tion 7277 , Freedom From War: The United
States Program for General and Complete Dis-
armament in a Peaceful World , which com-
mits the United States by federal law to The
disbanding of all national armed forces...
other than those required to preserve i nterna l
order and for contributions to a United Na-
tions Peace Force. [ Emphasis added.] There
is no mention in Freedom From War why
the United Nations needs a Peace Force in
a world that has disbanded all national
armed forces. Then, Women Strike for
Peace never mentioned why they were op-
posed to only America testing nuclear weap-
ons. (Still scratching your head over
“peacekeeping,” the “draw down” of our
military, Combat Application Group using
U.S. cities as live-fire training areas, the
militarization of our police, and the posting
of active duty commanders to — the few
remaining — National Guard combat
units?)
Which was immediately
swamped bv letters and telegrams from con-
cerned women who denounced the hear-
ings — a considerable number of whom
were subsequently identified from testimony
of previous hearings as members of the
Communist Party. (Gannon, II, page 193.)
The tactic involved here was to
get everybody, especially stupid non -Reds
(“useful idiots”) to “take the Fifth.” That
protected the real Reds when they “pled the
Fifth.”
Arnold Johnson of the CPUSA
thought the idea of movements with no
leaders was a wonderful idea, and since the
1960s movements for peace and social
and economic justice have been spontane-
ously arising at the drop of any crisis that
was created bv the last miraculous sponta-
neous movement.
Gannon, II, page 195. [Dagmar
s statement that everybody in Women
Strike for Peace was a leader is a crucial
insight into the feminist movement writ
large. On the whole, women “take things
personally,” are impulsive, and tend toward
“touchy-feely’’ responses to carefully crafted
stimuli. In that sense, any action, like sim-
ply picking up a phone and calling some
body, is leadership. Which is precisely what
Dagmar was averring when she testified
before the HCUA that every woman in
the movement is a leader, working on her
own initiative for the cause of peace. Bv
1964, Women Strike for Peace claimed
500,000 leaderlcss leaders. I know; but hey,
it s a woman s way of knowing. |
Abzug, page 1 9.
Gannon, II, page 478.
The New Democratic Coalition
was geared to steering New Left radicals,
the politically “alienated,” “peace activists,”
feminists, homosexuals, and Negro welfare
socialists into the Democratic Party “to cre-
ate policies that would bring peace.” See:
Abzug, 1 57 ff. | Although she doesn’t men
tion N DC by name, she was a major player.]
Gannon, III, page 212.
Abzug, page 157.
Dr. Susan I luck, I elephone con-
versation with the author, 27 March 1998.
Dr. Huck was Representative Lawrence
McDonald s research assistant.
“Oh, please don’t say ‘irreversible.
Leave us some hope!” (Dr. Susan Huck.
Iuli tor’s notes on the manuscript of this ar-
ticle. 1 May 1998.) Perhaps America’s de-
scent into socialism and totalitarianism is
reversible. But it would be a very messy pro-
cess.
Gannon, II, 267.
The current mayor of New York
City, Rudolph Giuliani, would like to rein-
state admission standards, but he has been
informed that 60% of “students” would then
be ineligible. These institutions arc now mere
holding pens for adolescents and the un-
employable. Which is what Shirley had in
mind all along.
“In the June 1969 issue of Politi-
cal Affairs [the official rag of the CPUSA],
old-time Communist Hosea Hudson
boasted how he was on the [ Democratic
Party] committee that chose Shirley
Chisholm as its congressional candidate....”
Gannon, II, 267.
Abzug, page 163.
56
Vol. IV, No. 3
68
The RESISTER
6 9
Abzug, page 164.
Congressional Record, 12 Octo-
ber 1971.
One of Dellums’ first projects to
destroy the military was to submit legisla-
tion calling for the establishment of the
Defense Race Relations Institute (now, the
Defense Equal Opportunity Management
Institute), training ground for the military’s
zampolit (political correctness commissars).
71 Dr. Susan Huck. Telephone con-
versation with author, 2 May 1998.
Nancy Zaroulis & Gerald
Sullivan, Who Spoke Up? American Protest
Against the War in Vietnam , 1963 - 1975.
(Doubleday & Company, Inc., New York,
1984) Page 359. [Congress never declared
war against North Vietnam, and therefore
could not “undeclare” it. If there are any
veterans who are readers of The Resister who
took part in that demonstration, and who
tossed their medals for valor and heroism
onto the Capitol steps like “guerrilla the-
ater” puppets — SHAME'. You should have
been splitting ‘peace loving’ skulls with mat-
tock handles.]
Gannon, III, 213.
74 Zaroulis &. Sullivan, page 379.
Gannon, III, 213.
76 Jeanne Holm, MG USAF (Ret.),
Women in the Military: An Unfinished Revo-
lution. (Presidio, Novato, 1982). Page 351.
[The subtitle sounds like an old
COMINTERN slogan, doesn’t it?]
“When Bella led the American
“woman’s” delegation to Beijing I had
hoped she would prove so obnoxious that
the Chinese Reds would lock her up. I wist-
fully envisioned Bella screaming at some
teen-age People’s Liberation Army guard,
‘Let me outta here, ya little snot! I was a
commie before your grandparents were
born!”’ (Dr. Susan Huck. Editor’s notes on
manuscript. 1 May 1998.)
Vol. IV, No. 3
57
The RESISTER
GREEN CROSS
Gorbachev and Global
Enviro-Communism
by
Natalie Grant
Moscow Stage Manager
A major Moscow directed hoax
of the 1950s was the “Peace
Movement.” T he Moscow re-
gime, expert in political deception, fol-
lows attentively western opinion, which
it then uses as a foundation to spread
disinformation. Concern by some
people in the free world over any par-
ticular development which might
threaten their well-being — for ex-
ample, nuclear weapons — is seized
upon by Moscow disinformation strat-
egists. By means of selected, slanted and
deceptive data, concerns are gradually
transformed into fear. Scared and un-
der considerable stress, the victims of
this Moscow game can thus be influ-
enced into accepting policies and tak-
ing steps harmful to their own interests
— like “disarmament.”
T he Soviets took advantage of anti-
war sentiments that had developed in
the west. They were interested, of
course, in promoting peace for their
own protection to make Soviet policies
more receptive to the public. The main
purpose of the “Peace Movement,”
stage managed from Moscow since its
inception, however, was to spread com-
munist influence th roughout the world.
The urge of the Soviet leadership to
expand in the west was confirmed by
I). Volkogonov, a prominent Soviet of-
ficial, archivist and historian. In a speech
at The National Archives in Washing-
ton, D.C., shortly before his death,
Volkogonov admitted that the objective
of the men in power in the Soviet Union
had always been to gain greater influ-
ence in the world at large. Expansion of
influence is, therefore, one of the prin-
cipal purposes of every major Moscow
disinformation hoax. Moscow’s meth-
ods have not changed.
The environment has replaced
peace, as an astute journalist recently
remarked. Although “peace” still re-
mains a prominent item on the list of
deceitful operations of Soviet leaders,
protection of the environment has be-
come the principal tool for attack
against the West and all it stands for.
Protection of the environment may be
used as a pretext to adopt a series of
measures designed to undermine the
industrial base of developed nations. It
may also serve to introduce malaise by
lowering their standard of living and
implanting commu-
nist “values.”
The modus operandi
in organizing the at-
tack against the West
via the environment is
similar in many re-
spects to methods em-
ployed by the
organization of the
“Peace Movement.”
True facts are exagger-
ated to the extreme
with the intention of
terrifying rank-and-
file citizens, while
doubtful evidence is
presented as scientifi-
cally proven fact.
The set up of the
environmental operation, however, is
more complex. Instead of one world
council representing the entire “Peace
Movement,” the environmental ex-
tremists (also known as professional
environmentalists) fall into two groups.
One, a non-governmental organization,
is the so-called Earth Council, chaired
by Maurice F. Strong, a top-level offi-
cial of the United Nations. The other
group, also an NGO, is linked with
Moscow through the Green Cross In-
ternational, or GCI. Mikhail S.
Gorbachev is its chairman and founder.
An early definition of Green Cross
International depicts GCI as an Ameri-
can non-governmental organization, a
private foundation created in April
1993. It was formed through a merger
with another environmental group,
known as World Cross International,
which existed in Switzerland. The Swiss
group had been formed four months
prior to the merger. This raises the
question as to whether the creation of
WCI and its merger with GCI were
moves to facilitate the establishment of
GCI headquarters in Geneva.
The early description of Green
Cross International as American was
false. Even while GCI now has a chap-
ter in the United States, GCI is not and
was never an American movement.
Global Forum
G reen Cross International traces
its origin to a group that
started out under the some-
what clumsy appellation of “Global Fo-
rum of Spiritual and Parliamentary
Leaders on Human Survival,” which it
abbreviated to Global Forum, using the
full name only in offi-
cial documents. It was
formed upon the ini-
tiative of Aiko
Matsumura, a Japa-
nese activist and now
Executive Coordina-
tor of the organiza-
tion.
Global Forum’s
purpose was to estab-
lish a dialogue with C.
Nobel, founder of the
Earth Aid Society. It is
difficult to determine
whether the idea of a
dialogue came to Mr.
Matsumura from
Moscow, which favors
dialogues as a tool for
infiltration. Mr. Nobel recruited the
Rev. James Park Morton, Dean of the
Cathedral of St. John the Divine in
New York, who arranged to have the
first meeting of the group in June 1985
in the Cathedral. Among other things,
they discussed a solution to “critical is-
sues,” such as degradation of the envi-
ronment and the depletion of the earth s
resources. There were only about a
dozen participants. They included,
however, prominent figures Angier
Biddle Duke, the former chief of pro-
tocol in the Kennedy and Johnson ad-
ministrations, and Congressman James
H. Scheuer of New York.
The meeting at the Cathedral was
Although “peace”
still remains a promi-
nent item on the list
of deceitful opera-
tions of Soviet lead-
ers, protection of the
environment has be-
come the principal
tool for attack against
the West and all it
stands for.
58
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
soon followed by a conference in
Tarry town, New York. The Tarry town
meeting had a more numerous audi-
ence. In Tarrytown, the question was
raised and the motion was approved of
holding an international conference in
Oxford, England.
Sometime later Congressman
Scheuer visited Moscow. He took along
invitations to the conference and
handed a few to the office of the Presi-
dent of the Supreme Soviet for trans-
mission to parliamentarians. Several
Soviet officials accepted the invitation
and attended the conference. The So-
viet delegation was led by Yevgeniy
Velikhov, Vice Chairman of the Soviet
Academy of Sciences.
The Oxford Conference was well at-
tended, mostly by leaders of non-Chris-
tian faiths and indigenous personalities.
In addition, there were representatives
from Britain (including the Archbishop
of Canterbury) and the Netherlands.
Among the delegates were Chief Oren
R. Lyons and Mother Teresa. There
were elections to the Council of Global
Forum. Nominated to the Council
were a number of religious leaders from
non-Christian faiths, as well as
Yevgeniy Velikhov.
During the proceedings, the GF
leadership announced that their next in-
ternational conference would take place
in Moscow, Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics. Under the circumstances one
wonders whether the Global Forum re-
ceived assistance from some powerful
ally. The international conference in
Oxford was a clever move on the part
of a practically unknown and question-
able group. With the Oxford Confer-
ence of 1987, the Global Forum entered
the international arena.
The Big Event — The Moscow
Confe rence
* I Mie Moscow Conference met in-
January 1990. Co-sponsored
JL by the Supreme Soviet of the
(then) USSR, the conference had the ac-
tive support of the Academy of Sciences.
All Soviet religious communities were
called upon to ensure the cooperation
of various religious communities. The
speakers included the Secretary Gen-
eral of the United Nations and the
President of the USSR. Senator A1
Gore was also among the speakers. He
had by then become a member of the
Global Forum Council and had even
contributed an article to Shared Vision ,
the official publication of the Global
Forum. 1
The key event was the speech by
Mikhail S. Gorbachev, President of the
Soviet Union. As it was summarized
in Shared Vision , 2 Gorbachevs speech
presented Soviet suggestions on how
to respond to an “ecological impera-
tive.” The Soviet recommendations
comprised the demand for a nuclear test
ban, the establishment
of an international en-
vironmental monitor-
ing system, the signing
of a covenant to pro-
tect unique ecological
zones, the support of
United Nations envi-
ronmental programs
and of the interna-
tional conference on
the environment and
development, which
was scheduled to meet
in June 1992 in Bra-
zil. Gorbachev noted
that environmental
tragedy could be
averted only through
international effort.
You should re-
member that at the
time of his speech, Gorbachev was still
the President of the Soviet Union and
he was expressing the “views” and “sug-
gestions” of the Communist Party So-
viet Union, of which he was leader.
These “suggestions” did not fall on
deaf ears. Before long, the activities of
Global Forum began to reflect the com-
munist “recommendations.” Indeed,
had there been any doubts as to the po-
litical stand by certain leaders of Glo-
bal Form or Moscow’s attitude toward
this barely known group, they were dis-
pelled by events at the Moscow Con-
ference. Intense Soviet interest in the
proceedings was obvious.
By 1 990, certain leaders of the Glo-
bal Forum had transformed their group
into a communist front and were ready
to act upon Soviet “suggestions.” The
services they began rendering to inter-
national communism were important.
In its appeal, Global Forum played on
hostility toward certain aspects ofWest-
ern civilization. Global Forum recruited
non-communist environmentalists and
placed them under the direct, control-
ling influence of communists. Naive
indigenous peoples, non-Christian re-
ligious figures and a few government
officials were the main target. Senator
A1 Gore may serve as an example. 3
The First Earth Summit
M eanwhile, the United Na-
tions was embarking on its
own program to protect the
environment. Leading among the en-
vironmentalists at the UN was Maurice
F. Strong, a multimillionaire with top-
level business contacts.
In 1972, Maurice
Strong acted as Secre-
tary General at the
Stockholm Confer-
ence, 4 which was con-
vened to put the
environment on the
world agenda.
In 1987, the UN
World Commission
on Environment and
Development called
for the establishment
of a code which would
prescribe principal
norms for behavior of
states and individuals
in matters relating to
the Earth. And in June
1992, the UN held an
international confer-
ence in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which
discussed to a large extent matters con-
nected with “protection” of the environ-
ment. Maurice Strong was one of the
organizers. In environmental circles,
this conference was known as The Earth
Summit.
All was not smooth sailing at the first
Earth Summit. Heads of state refused
to accept some proposals, and argu-
ments were often bitter. Insults were
exchanged, and President Bush, who at-
tended the meeting, got his share of
comment. Timothy Wirth, a former
senator from Colorado, accused him of
engaging in “adolescent politics” and
looking “silly” for not signing a treaty
on biodiversity." Global Forum, for
some reason, held a simultaneous con-
ference of environmental parliamentar-
ians in another section of the city. The
presence of two similar meetings in Rio
de Janeiro led to confusion. Resolu-
tions passed by Global Forum were at-
tributed at times by observers to the
United Nations Earth Summit.
The conference of parliamentarians
served Global Forum as an opportu-
nity to put into effect Soviet president
Gorbachev’s “suggestion” to establish
You should remem-
ber that at the time of
his speech,
Gorbachev was still
the President of the
Soviet Union and he
was expressing the
views and sugges-
tions” of the Commu-
nist Party Soviet
Union, of which he
was leader.
Vol. IV, No. 3
59
The RESISTER
an international monitoring institution
to protect the environment. This was
accomplished by having the parliamen-
tarians pass unanimously a resolution
creating an organization, named Inter-
national Green Cross, later changed to
Green Cross International. According
to a GCI press release, Mikhail
Gorbachev’s Moscow speech was at the
root of Green Cross International’s
foundation. He was, therefore, invited
to accept the position of founder and
chairman of GCI. The formal launch-
ing of GCI could not take place at Rio
and had to be postponed to a future
international conference. That took
place in 1993 in Kyoto, Japan.
Gorbachev attended the Kyoto confer-
ence and accepted the nomination.
Although environmentalist circles
were disappointed by the results of the
1 992 Earth Summit, it actually proved
to be a step forward in their campaign
for global “protection” of the environ-
ment. The UN conference, thus,
adopted a program for the coming cen-
tury. The course of action based off
“sustainable development” was set
down in a document known as Agenda
21, which was further amplified by
meetings in Copenhagen, Cairo, and
Beijing.
Agenda 21 is viewed by environmen-
tal extremists as a blueprint in “sustain-
able development.” It was circulated
among world leaders who are expected
by environmental extremists to imple-
ment its provisions. The document is
divided into forty chapters, some of
which contain, on their face, what ap-
pear to he reasonable demands, until
those demands are juxtaposed with
other chapters (i.e., the chapter on “so-
cial justice”) that reflect adherence to
blatantly communist doctrines.
The Earth Council
T he Earth Council, an interna-
tional non-governmental orga-
nization, also arose as a direct
result of the Earth Summit. The prob-
able creator of the Earth Council is its
chairman Maurice F. Strong. It states
its mission to be the support and “em-
powerment” of “people” in building a
more “secure,” “equitable” and “sustain-
able” future. The Council, therefore,
aims at strengthening the participation
of “equal rights” groups, particularly
women, indigenous peoples and
“youth,” in its work. 6 The special focus
of the Earth Council is to ensure the
“operationalization” of indigenous
people, women and “youth.”
Canadian born, in his sixties, Mr.
Strong is a self-made man and has in-
numerable contacts in highly placed and
wealthy business circles where he seems
to enjoy a good reputation. He admits
to holding a “socialist ideology” and has
been described by a former UN Deputy
Ambassador as a “very dangerous ideo-
logue, way over the left.”' Mr. Strong’s
immediate assistant is the Executive
Director of the Earth Council, Maximo
T. Kalaw. He is said to be an “activist”
from the Philippines. Mr. Kalaw, who
also heads the Earth
Council Institute and
is the Chairman of the
Green Forum of the
Philippines, holds
some rather bizarre
views. For instance,
according to Mr.
Kalaw. economic soci-
ety, although the main
engine for economic
development, does not
hold “public interest”
as its primary concern
and, therefore, its
members should not he allowed to be
part of public governance. Moscow is
represented on the board of the Earth
Council by Yevgeniy Velikhov, Vice
Chairman of the Soviet Academy of
Sciences.
Since its establishment, the Earth
Council has been in close collaboration
with Green Cross International. In
April, 1994, Maurice Strong and
Mikhail Gorbachev met at the Hague
and launched an “initiative” for an earth
charter. They proposed the signing of
the charter which would, according to
its promoters, provide a “new mode of
life” based upon radical “principles for
the whole of humanity.” Both Maurice
Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev viewed
The Earth Charter as a priority. In this
respect they seemed to be following the
precepts of the UN World Commis-
sion on Environment and Develop-
ment (UNCED). Indeed, in 1987
UNCED had called for the formation
of a charter which would prescribe
“norms” for states and individuals to
maintain life on earth.
In order to produce an “ethical and
moral” set of “imperatives,” environ-
mental extremists supported the idea
of an earth charter plan to precede its
acceptance by a worldwide consultation
involving all sectors of society. To reach
consensus in a world inhabited by
people of totally opposite views is an
impossible undertaking. Therefore
“consensus” will be achieved by limit-
ing consultation to individuals and
NGOs already favoring the Earth Char-
ter.
Green Cross International
T he political line adopted by
Green Cross International is
that of Mikhail Gorbachev,
founder and chairman of GCI, who,
appropriately, is its mouthpiece. Of
course, as a commu-
nist, Gorbachev and
the Green Cross will
want to install commu-
nist “values.” In its pro-
nouncements, Green
Cross usually calls for
action but leaves untold
the action it plans to
take. Generalities per-
meate the statements
of GCI — and
Gorbachev as well —
relating to doctrine
and activities. In dis-
cussing the aims of his enterprise,
Gorbachev calls for a “new civilization,”
asserting that neither democracy nor
prayers to God can solve the alleged
“world crisis.” What is a “new civiliza-
tion?” He does not explain. Because
civilization is usually understood to be
cultural and technological development,
the qualifying “new” requires interpre-
tation that is (conveniently) not sup-
plied. Gorbachev constantly demands
a “change of values” but never specifies
the values he wants changed, or what
should replace them.
In its analysis of the Earth Charter,
GCI also follows Gorbachev’s lead.
GCI laments that despite repeated ef-
forts, the “international community”
has not yet been able to agree on an
effective international treaty that would
guarantee the “rights” of the earth. 8
With the creation of international law
a “slow and tedious process,” GCI sug-
gests greater focusing on “soft law.” 9 Soft
law refers to non-binding documents
drawn up by special interest groups,
such as GCI orThe Earth Council, that
establish “norms,” hoping they will take
on the force of “law” through custom-
ary practice. Majority rule and dissent
are thereby circumvented. 10 Green
Cross International hopes, however, to
Gorbachev con-
stantly demands a
“change of values”
but never specifies
the values he wants
changed, or what
should replace them.
60
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
persuade the government of each coun-
try to ratify the Earth Charter in time
for its proclamation on 01 January
2000.
The administrative director of
Green Cross International is Andreas
Eggenberg. He advocates integration of
all sectors of society at every level in
order to achieve “constructive” overall
prevention of and response to disas-
ters. In his opinion, this approach will
stabilize the ecological and political
“situation” of humanity. 11
The top figure in Green Cross In-
ternational remains Mikhail
Gorbachev, admitted communist by
training and conviction. The Vice Presi-
dent if GCI is Daniel Goeudevert, a
Frenchman, self-made businessman,
who occupies prominent positions in
the automotive world. He is a member
of the Club of Rome and an advisor to
the Director General of UNESCO. He
also presides over the Economic Coun-
cil of the Gorbachev Foundation.
The United States chapter of Green
Cross International was officially
opened by Mikhail Gorbachev during
his visit in October 1994. Named “Glo-
bal Green USA,” it maintains offices
in several cities, including New York
and Cleveland, Ohio. It also has an of-
fice in Washington, D.C., where it is
represented by one Paul Walker. The
president of the American chapter is
one Diane Meyer Simons, whose slo-
gan is “one world, one people.” She ap-
parently intends to use this motto to
rally public and political leaders for ac-
tion and support of Global Green USA.
Global Green USA is directed by Hugh
Locke, who in his first year of activity
concentrated on a campaign against
“toxic military waste.” Hugh Locke also
seems interested in the production of
documentary films devoted to leaders
of the environmental movement. As are
most of his colleagues, Hugh Locke is
vague in his comments. It is, therefore,
difficult to understand what he means
when he too calls for the creation of a
“new civilization.”
Expan s i° n
g 1 reen Cross and Crescent In-
I ternational is nowin its fourth
year. (Sometimes “Crescent”
is added to the GCI name.) At first
glance, it does not seem to have per-
formed any spectacular feat. Its name
has never been mentioned during vol-
canic eruptions, nor does GCI seem to
have intervened in saving the victims
of extensive floods, nor has it received
publicity at the time of oil spills. GCI
has been silent on the Three Gorges
Dam Project in China, scheduled for
completion in 2009, although the
project is expected to have a profound
ecological, environmental, cultural, ar-
cheological and historical impact. Yet,
rescuing the victims of disasters and
protecting ecological zones are in the
GCI program. In fact, skeptics argue
that so far GCI has
been long on rhetoric
and short on action. 12
Green Cross Inter-
national, however, has
not been idle. It has ac-
tively collaborated
with UN environmen-
tal extremists at nu-
merous meetings and
conferences and has
taken a leading role in
launching the Earth
Charter. Gorbachev
and his staff have fur-
ther been seeking and
finding support in
government circles,
particularly in Hol-
land, and have been engaged in expand-
ing GCI into a truly international
organization. Barely one year after its
establishment, Green Cross and Cres-
cent International had already formed
five national chapters. The GCI oper-
ates two centers. One is in the Hague,
where GCI maintains its programs on
“values” education, as well as matters
related to the media and communica-
tions. The other center is in Geneva,
Switzerland, where GCI handles emer-
gency operations. I n addition, the group
has chapters in a number of countries,
including Estonia, France, Japan, Ko-
rea, the Netherlands (where govern-
ment circles have donated at least
$75,000 to GCI), Sweden, Switzerland,
Russia, the United Kingdom and the
United States.
The Second Earth Summit
I n March 1997, five years after the
Earth Summit, a conference on en-
vironment met in Rio de Janeiro
with an attendance of some five hun-
dred people. It has been named Rio+5.
The participants met in order to review
the progress in “sustainable develop-
ment” made since the Earth Summit
and apparently to prepare for the Sec-
ond Earth Summit.
Rio+5 issued a set of recommenda-
tions dealing with the necessity to fo-
cus attention on The Earth Charter and
to reach a consensus on “values.” The
meeting parties stressed the need to
strengthen the participation of “equal
rights” groups, i.e., women, indigenous
peoples and “youth” in councils for sus-
tainable development. The emphasis
placed by environmental extremists
upon “sustainability” raises questions.
Supporters of
“sustainability” often
disregard the fact that
nature is their most
dangerous opponent.
With one sweep, na-
ture can destroy the
most carefully laid
plans. The volcano at
Montserrat, which
transformed a flour-
ishing community
into a desert of ash,
may serve as an ex-
ample.
The UN Second
Earth Summit opened
its doors injune 1997.
Dignitaries from over
160 countries flocked to the meeting in
New York City. President Bill Clinton
and Vice-president A1 Gore also at-
tended. The summit reportedly began
with “recriminations between Europe
and the United States and by Third
World countries condemning devel-
oped countries for broken promises.” 11
The main points in the discussion con-
cerned aid to developing countries by
the West — or rather, by the United
States. Another point dealt with the
signing of a pact reducing “greenhouse
gases” and their emission; a pact spe-
cifically designed to cripple what’s left
of American industry. Phis was pre-
sented to the conference in Kyoto, Ja-
pan, in December 1997.
Environmental extremists proclaimed
their disappointment with the results
of The Second Earth Summit. They
failed to note, however, as did herbalist
Charles K. Hanley 14 that the environ-
mental movement made progress by
“slow bits” over the last four decades.
Conclusion
I nformation available at the present
time seems to show that the envi-
ronmental extremists maintain
contact with and are supported by Mos-
The meeting par-
ties stressed the need
to strengthen the par-
ticipation of “equal
rights” groups, i.e.,
women, indigenous
peoples and “youth”
in councils for sus-
tainable develop-
ment.
Vol. IV, No. 3
61
The RESISTER
cow. The “movement” has all the traits
of a Soviet disinformation operation.
Facts are exaggerated into a “nightmar-
ish” picture of floods, scorched earth,
disease and death. The target, the in-
dustrialized West — scared and con-
fused by Moscow’s sympathizers in
“science,” academe, and the slavishly
obedient Establishment media — is
influenced to accept measures and regu-
lations harmful to the Western world.
These are not the only consequences
of the action of the environmental ex-
tremist movement. It is promoting con-
flict, domestically and internationally.
We can only marvel at the skill with
which the two top leaders have proved
able to introduce dissent and conflict
into usually pacific circles.
These two leaders, Maurice Strong
and Mikhail Gorbachev, are men of
considerable experience. They under-
stand economic and politics. They are
therefore fully aware of what they are
doing. Strong has the power of the
United Nations at his disposal.
Gorbachev, and able public relations
man, gained considerable influence in
the period following his retirement
from president of the USSR. They are
consciously harming the United States.
Who profits from the activities of
these two men?
NOTES:
1 Shared Vision , No. 6, Global Fo-
rum (no publishers address given).
Shared Vision , No. 7, Global Fo-
rum, (no publisher’s address given), p. 1 1 .
Editor’s Note. Mine. Grant, in
my estimation, gives credit to (now) Vice
President A1 Gore as an apparent dupe,
where no such credit is due. Albert Gore Jr.’s
father, Albert Gore Sr., had a “distinguished”
career as political shield bearer for “business-
man” Armand Hammer, who was an inti-
mate of Lenin, Stalin, and Krushchev (yes,
Hammer was Jewish and a Communist).
Hammer’s FBI “dossier” had to be trundled
around on a dolly. 1 1 ammer first bribed Rep.
Gore Sr. in 1950 with a “profitable partner-
ship” in a cattle-breeding business (can you
say “money laundering?”), payoffs for “pull”
that continued well into the late ’60s. In
return, Gore Sr. provided political “access,”
and “protection” from FBI interference in
I Iammer’s illegal technology transfers to the
Soviet Union. (Another of Hammer’s Con-
gressional stooges was Rep. James Roosevelt,
eldest — and eminently bribe worthy —
son of FDR.) After Gore Sr. became a sena-
tor he became a tireless champion for Ham-
mer, and greaser of skids for yet greater
political “access.” Senator Albert Gore Sr.
was a vehement champion of “world peace”
(in the Communist sense of the phrase),
the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, the creation of the Peace Corps,
and praised the United Nations’ brutal re-
pression of anti-communism in Katanga
province, Congo, in 1962. Albert Gore was
the darling of the communist-front Coun-
cil for a Livable World, advocate of trans-
ferring state-of-the-art technology to the
Soviet Union for “peaceful purposes” (a
Hammer project), and beginning “ex-
changes” with communist Eastern Europe
to promote “understanding” (another Ham-
mer project). Albert Gore was an enthusi-
astic supporter of President Johnson’s “Great
Society” programs; his only complaint was
that Johnson’s socialist programs didn’t go
far enough. [!] Gore Sr.’s final payoff was a
vice-presidency in .Armand Hammer’s Oc-
cidental coal division. Sen. A1 Gore Jr. was
also an intimate of Hammer, who sat at Gore
Jr.’s table at Reagan’s inauguration ball. VP
A1 Gore is every inch his father’s son, hav-
ing learned the “trade” at daddy’s feet; he
was “groomed” to be where he is now. In
line for the presidency. Treason may not
corrupt blood legally, but it does seen to run
in the Gore family.
Guardian , September 17, 1991.
The Washington Times , November
8, 1997, p.l .
It is an interesting ‘coincidence’
that in her extensive travel among indig-
enous peoples Hillary Clinton usually ad-
dresses women and “youth.”
Alston Chase, The Washington
Times , October 4, 1997, A13.
“Earth Charter Programme,”
Green Cross International, (http://
www.gci.ch/greencroSs/projs/earth.html). It
is doubtful this document is currently ac-
cessible.
9 Ibid.
1 0 Gordon L. Brady. “Greenthreats?
The 1992 UN Conference in Environment
and Development.” International Freedom
Review. Spring, 1991, p. 47.
n PR News Service, November 5,
1994.
12 Audubon, Nov/Dec., 1994, p.56.
The Washington Times , )une 24,
1997.
The Washington Times , June 29,
1997.
62
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
WASHINGTON
WEASELSPEAK
by
L.S. Spooner
I f English is ever declared the offi
cial language of the United States,
the biggest upheaval will be in
Washington, D.C. That’s because they
don’t speak English in Washington.
They speak Weasel. You may not real-
ize that, because Weaselspeak has the
same-sounding words and grammati-
cal structure as English. When you hear
it, you thinkyou’re hearing English. But
you’re not. You’re hearing a very dif-
ferent language. Sometimes what’s be-
ing said is entirely opposite of what you
think is being said.
An Increase is a Cut
L et me give you some examples.
In Washington, the word cut is
frequently used when budgets
are discussed. Now that’s interesting,
because we English-speakers might
very well use that word in a financial
context. You and I might say, for in-
stance, that we must “cut” our monthly
entertainment spending because money
is tight. In English that phrase means
of course that in coming months, we
should spend less than we are now
spending. Alternatively, imagine that
you initially planned to increase your
entertainment spending by 10 percent.
But you decide you will increase it by 7
percent instead. Is the new entertain-
ment budget an increase or a cut over
the current level? The answer depends
on what language you’re speaking. In
English, it’s an increase. Let’s say to-
day you spend $100 a month on enter-
tainment. You planned to increase your
entertainment budget to $110, but you
change that plan to increase it only to
$107. Clearly, your budget is going
from $100 to $107 — an increase of $7
per month.
But none of that is true in Washing-
ton Weaselspeak. If a program costs
$100 billion a year and previous plans
called for a 10 percent increase to $1 10
billion, but that is later changed to a 7
percent increase, in Washington
Weaselspeak that’s called a cut. How
can that be? Simple: The budget was
supposed to go to $110 billion. Now it
is changed to $107 million. That’s a cut
of $3 billion. Get it?
If you understand that, you should
understand much of the budget discus-
sions that go on in the nation’s capital.
When the Democrats say the Republi-
cans are cutting Medicare (or just about
anything else) a close look will reveal
that Weaselspeak is being spoken. In
fact, the Republicans are just slowing
the growth in spend-
ing and, as they
proudly claim, “saving
Medicare.”The budget
savings are like those
you realize when you
buy something you
don’t need that’s on
sale.
Subsidies Are Credits
T hat is not the only way that
Weaselspeak differs from En
glish. Consider the term re-
fundable tax credit. Ordinarily, a tax
credit, as you might guess, is a credit
toward taxes due. For example, the Re-
publican plan would provide taxpayers
a $500 tax credit for each child. So if
the IRS would have taken, say, $3,000
from a taxpayer with two children, the
tax credit would reduce the bill to
$2,000. Simple, right? So what about a
refundable tax credit? It should mean
that a citizen has some of his tax money
refunded. Except that a citizen who
doesn’t have enough income and pay
enough (or any) taxes to take advan-
tage of the credit is given money di-
rectly from the U.S. Treasury. It’s nei-
ther a refund nor a tax credit. It’s a sub-
sidy from the taxpayers. That’s how
Washington Weaselspeak works.
The Earned Income Tax Credit
(EITC) is a good example of a refund-
able tax credit. If the head of a family
has income below what the government
calls the “poverty level” (an utterly du-
bious concept), the family gets a cash
subsidy. As income rises, the subsidy
declines. At a certain point, the earner
stops getting a subsidy and begins pay-
ing taxes. You and I would never think
to call an outright cash grant a credit for
taxes not paid. But that’s how it works
in Washington. The EITC called a pro-
gram to offset the Social Security pay-
roll tax for low-income workers. But in
that case, it merely delays the subsidy.
Those workers will get the same Social
Security benefits on retirement that
they would have gotten without the tax
offset.
The illogic surrounding EITC is so
bad that anyone who proposes to cut or
abolish it will be accused of favoring a
tax increase on the working poor! In
other words, to end a cash subsidy from
the taxpayers is to raise taxes — bizarre.
(If we really want to relieve workers of
a harsh tax burden, Washington should
abolish the Social Se-
curity tax altogether
and let people save for
their own retirement.)
You may notice
that the EITC works
like a negative income
tax. The word negative
is classic Washington
Weaselspeak. Only in Washington can
you hear the term “negative growth” as
in, “The economy will experience nega-
tive growth this year.” If a subsidy is
really a negative tax, it follows that a tax
is just a negative subsidy. When April
15 rolls around next year, I will assuage
my resentment by thinking that I’m not
really paying taxes at all — I’m actually
getting a negative subsidy. I’m sure I’ll
feel better.
I noticed another example of
Weaselspeak recently. The Republicans
are accused of cutting programs for the
“poor” so that they can reduce taxes on
the rich. Critics say the Republicans
really want to redistribute money from
the poor to the rich. Would cutting pro-
grams for the poor and taxes for the
rich be a redistribution of wealth? Those
...they don’t speak
English in Washing-
ton. They speak
Weasel.
Vol. IV, No. 3
63
programs subsidize the poor with
money taken from the taxpayers, in-
cluding the rich. That’s a redistribution!
So how can it be a redistribution to let
the rich keep their money instead of
handing it over to the poor? To believe
that, you would have to believe that the
poor have first claim to that money and
that the creators of wealth have no claim.
But that cannot be, for that would mean
that the poor own the rich. That’s sla-
very and is contrary to natural law as
well as the U.S. Constitution.
While we’re on the subject of redis-
tribution, let’s acknowledge how impre-
cise that word is. A redistribution
implies a prior distribution. But in a
market economy, income is not distrib-
uted; it is received through voluntary
transactions. The idea of distribution
implies the existence of a common in-
come pot from which individual shares
are ladled out. Even in a mixed
economy that’s not how the lion’s share
of income is obtained. For most people
(excluding all those on the various
doles), income is a function of supply
and demand. Other people buy their
labor services or products. The price of
those things and thus the income of the
sellers depend on the subjective valua-
tion of the buyers. Income is not dis-
tributed — until the government gets its
grubby hands on it.
IfThere s no Crisis, Invent
One!
T he recent spike in gasoline
prices provided more ex-
amples of Washington
Weaselspeak. On the NewsHour with
Jim Lehrer, Democratic Sen. Byron
Dorgan of North Dakota called the
price increase a “crisis.” Republican
Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, sitting
at his side, did not disagree. He joined
Dorgan in calling for a Justice Depart-
ment investigation into why prices had
risen.
Note the word “crisis.” In English a
crisis is a dangerous situation requir-
ing immediate action. In Washington
Weaselspeak the word has a far differ-
ent meaning. Consider the context: by
May of 1996 the price of gasoline had
gone up 20 cents in 1996 and was aver-
aging about $1.27 a gallon. Neverthe-
less, after adjusting for inflation,
gasoline was still cheaper than it had
been for most of the century. A long
motor trip might be several bucks more
expensive because of the higher price.
The RESISTER
Is that a crisis? Not in English it isn’t.
But in Weaselspeak it is. In
Weaselspeak “crisis” is what a politi-
cian calls something when he needs an
excuse to interfere with people’s peace-
ful activities. It is a situation that in his
view only government can address
through its coercive powers.
By definition, it is also a situation
that the government is not responsible
for. You will never hear
the President say, “In
light of the current cri-
sis, I have ordered the
Justice Departments
investigate how the
government has
screwed things up.”
That combination of
words does not exist in
Washington Weaselspeak.
It doesn’t matter how many obvious
reasons there are for the rise in gaso-
line prices — the hard winter, which di-
verted oil to heating fuel; environmental
regulations; uncertainty over Iraq’s abil-
ity to sell its crude; new demand for oil
from the developing countries — the
politicians are sure that it is all an oil
industry conspiracy. The Weaselspeak
definition of “crisis” dictates that.
When Republicans weighed in by
calling for repeal of President Clinton’s
1993 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax, more
Weaselspeak was spewed about. The
Republicans were right to call for re-
peal, though they were too late and too
moderate. (Why not repeal the whole
gas tax?) Their repeal effort should not
have been linked to the price increase.
That just made them look like price ma-
nipulators. It also let the Democrats
mock them by demanding a guarantee
that the 4.3 cents would go to consum-
ers.
The Democrats’ reaction to the re-
peal proposal was classic Washington
Weaselspeak. They asked how the Re-
publicans would pay for the $30 billion
tax cut.
Paving For Nothing
nytime someone calls for a tax
cut, the tax lovers demand to
JL JLknow how it is going to be paid
for. That question could only be phrased
in Washington Weaselspeak. Think
about it: the government takes money
from the people. If a tax is cut, the gov-
ernment stops taking so much from the
people. What’s to pay for?Tax cuts don’t
cost anything! Imagine if a professional
thief decided not to steal one night.
Wouldn’t it be silly for his wife to ask,
“How are you going to pay for your de-
cision not to steal?”
When a politician asks how a tax cut
will be paid for, he is really asking how
his pet government programs will be
paid for if the taxpayers are not looted
as much as before. Tax cuts do have a
cost — to the government. It’s out that
amount of money. So
if it wants to continue
financing programs, it
has to find the money
elsewhere. But let’s be
clear: tax cuts don’t
have a price tag; gov-
ernment programs do.
If we could recast
the tax-cut discussion
from Weaselspeak to English, the de-
bate could be dramatically different. In-
stead of wondering how tax cuts would
be paid for, we’d be discussing how gov-
ernment boondoggles would be paid
for. And once that discussion is opened,
it’s short step to asking if those boon-
doggles should be paid for at all.
Republican Majority Leader Rep.
Dick Armey suggested cutting money
from the federal education budget to
reduce the government’s need for rev-
enue. That provided another good ex-
ample of Washington Weaselspeak.
Sen. Dorgan accused Armey of want-
ing to cut “education.” That’s a dumb
idea, Dorgan said, because education
is an investment in our future.
Note the subtleties of Washington
Weaselspeak. Cutting a part of the fed-
eral budget labeled “education” equates
to cutting money for actual education.
When you think in Weaselspeak, no
consideration can be given to the pos-
sibility that the budget not only fails to
advance education but in fact stands in
the way of it. Cutting the budget actu-
ally would be pro-education. But there
is no equivalent of those words in
Washington Weaselspeak.
Tell ‘em Anything, But Say
ashington Weaselspeak is
the only language based on
the ideas that “reality is ne-
gotiable” (according to buttons worn by
Capitol Hill budget staffers a few years
ago) and that manipulating words has
the effect of manipulating real things.
So, if a congressman votes for a bill titled
“The Education Improvement Act,” he
Income is not dis-
tributed — until the
government gets its
grubby hands on it.
64
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
can tell his constituents that he voted to
improve education, regardless of what
the bill actually does. In other words, in
Washington Weaselspeak “The Edu-
cation Improvement Act” translates to
“The Let Us Pretend that We Improved
Education Act (Ha Ha).” Once you get
the hang of this Weaselspeak, Wash-
ington becomes easy to understand.
Someone once suggested that we’d
be better off if congressional bills were
titles only. Then members of Congress
could vote for the Education Improve-
ment Act, the Crime Prevention Act,
the Economic Revitalization Act, the
Poverty Eradication Act, the Creation
of Heaven on Earth Act — and not do
any harm to the country. It’s not a bad
idea. You can see this
point in the recent dis-
cussion about raising
the minimum wage. It
is well established that
when government sets
a minimum wage it
hurts the least em-
ployable people. If the
wage is higher than the
market would set for
those people, they will
not find jobs. They
may even lose jobs
they now hold. (If the
wage is set at or below
the market level, the
law is superfluous.)
When a few of the
more enlightened members of Con-
gress pointed that out, the defenders of
the increase could only say, “But we
haven’t raised the minimum wage in
many years. People who work should
be able to earn a living wage.”
Translated from Weaselspeak, that
means: “Don’t bother me with incon-
venient facts. I want to be able to say I
did something nice for the working
poor, and I need the support of orga-
nized labor.” If a minimum wage sup-
porter is pressed on the harm that is
done to the poor, he’ll say, “Raising the
minimum wage won’t necessarily have
significant negative effects. ’’Translated,
that means: “I don’t have to worry.
Those who lose jobs or can’t find them
won’t realize that the minimum wage
and I are to blame.”
A final bit of Weaselspeak: The In-
ternal Revenue Service is always brag-
ging that the income tax is based on
“voluntary compliance.” You might
wonder, then, why there are penalties
for failure to file and to pay. That’s be-
cause “voluntary compliance” is
Weaselspeak, not English. When a
mugger demands your wallet at gun-
point, he expects you to reach into your
pocket and hand it over. That’s volun-
tary compliance. Involuntary compli-
ance would mean the mugger reaches
into your pocket and takes the wallet
himself.
The same goes with the IRS. Since
you are expected to furnish to the gov-
ernment (possibly incriminating) infor-
mation about your tax liability, it is
called voluntary compliance. That you
are threatened with fines and prison if
you don’t comply is irrelevant. Invol-
untary compliance would be the IRS
telling you how much
you owe without your
cooperation. As Rep.
Charles Rangel of
New York, a Demo-
cratic member of the
House Ways and
Means Committee,
has said, “What
makes a voluntary sys-
tem work is the fear of
sanctions and penal-
ties.”
As you can see,
what you and I mean
by voluntary compli-
ance is not what the
IRS means.The use of
Weaselspeak may sew
cynicism and disrespect for legitimate
law, but that doesn’t deter the politicians
and bureaucrats from persisting in its
use.
In 1946 George Orwell wrote a fa-
mous essay, “Politics and the English
Language,” that diagnosed the phe-
nomenon I call Washington
Weaselspeak. As he wrote;
The great enemy of clear language is
insincerity. When there is a gap between
one’s real and one’s declared aims, one
turns as it were instinctively to long words
and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish
squirting out ink... But if thought
corrupts language, language can also
corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread
by tradition and imitation, even among
people who can and should know better...
One cannot change this all in a moment,
but one can at least change one’s own
habits, and from time to time one can
even, if one jeers loudly enough, send
some worn-out and useless phrase... into
the dustbin where it belong.
As Rep. Charles
Rangel of New York,
a Democratic mem-
ber of the House
Ways and Means
Committee, has said,
“What makes a vol-
untary system work is
the fear of sanctions
and penalties.”
Other perceptive observers, such as
Mark Twain and H. L. Mencken, have
grasped Orwell’s insight. Americans
have always implicitly grasped it; that’s
why ridiculing politicians is a national
pastime.
When you come right down to it,
Weaselspeak is a testament to the low
regard in which political leaders hold
the citizenry. They may praise the
people for their good sense. But when
you see them systematically lie in their
campaigns and their speeches, it all
rings hollow.
They just don’t think we’re terribly
smart.
Vol. IV, No. 3
65
The RESISTER
WHAT IS
“POLITICAL
CORRECTNESS”?
by
William S. Lind
M ost Americans look hack on
the 1950s as a good time.
Our homes and streets were
safe, to the point where many people
did not bother locking their doors.
Public schools were generally excellent,
and the problems in them were things
like talking in class and running in the
halls. Most men treated women like la-
dies, and most ladies devoted their time
and effort to making good homes, rear-
ing their children well and helping their
communities through volunteer work.
Children grew up in two-parent house-
holds, and the mother was there to meet
the child when he came home from
school. Entertainment was something
the whole family could enjoy.
What happened?
I f a man from America of the 1950s
were suddenly introduced into
America in the 1990s, he would
hardly recognize it as the same coun-
try. He would be in immediate danger
of getting mugged, carjacked or worse,
because he would not have learned to
live in constant fear, fie would not know
that he shouldn’t go into certain parts
of the city, that his car must he not only
locked but equipped with an alarm, that
he dare not go to sleep at night without
locking the windows and bolting the
doors-and setting the electronic secu-
rity system.
If he brought his family with him,
Mr. William S. Lind currently
serves as Director of the Center for
Cultural Conservatism of the Free
Congress Foundation. He also hosts
the television program “Next Revo-
lution” on the “America’s Voice” net-
work.
he and his wife would probably cheer-
fully pack their children off to the near-
est public school.
When the children
came home in the af-
ternoon and told them
they had to go through
a metal detector to get
in the building, had
been given some funny
white powder by an-
other kid and had
learned that homo-
sexuality is normal
and good, the parents
would be uncomprehending.
In the office, the man might light up
a cigarette, drop a reference to the “little
lady,” and say he was happy to see the
firm employing some Negroes in im-
portant positions. Any of those acts
would earn a swift reprimand, and to-
gether they might get him fired.
When she went into the city to shop,
the wife would put on a nice suit, hat,
and possibly gloves. She would not un-
derstand why people stared, and
mocked.
And when the whole family sat
down after dinner and turned on the
television, they would not understand
how pornography from some sleazy,
blank-fronted “Adults Only” kiosk had
gotten into their set.
Were they able, our 1950s family
would head back to the 1950s as fast as
they could, with a gripping horror story
to tell. Their story would be of a nation
that had decayed and degenerated at a
fantastic pace, moving in less than half
a century from the greatest country on
earth to aThird World nation, overrun
by crime, noise, drugs and dirt. The fall
of Rome was graceful by comparison.
Why did it happen?
f ver the last forty years,
I I America has been conquered
by the same force that earlier
took over Russia, China, Germany and
Italy. That force is ideology. Here, as
elsewhere, ideology has inflicted enor-
mous damage on the traditional culture
it came to dominate, fracturing it ev-
erywhere and sweeping much of it
away. In its place came fear, and ruin.
Russia will take a generation or more
to recover from Communism, if it ever
can.
The ideology that has taken over
America goes most commonly by the
name of “Political Correctness.” Some
people see it as a joke. It is not. It is
deadly serious. It seeks to alter virtu-
ally all the rules, for-
mal and informal, that
govern relations
among people and in-
stitutions. It wants to
change behavior,
thought, even the
words we use. To a
significant extent, it
already has. Whoever
or whatever controls
language also controls
thought. Who dares to
speak of “ladies” now?
Just what is “Political Correctness?”
“Political Correctness” is in fact cultural
Marxism — Marxism translated from
economic into cultural terms. The ef-
fort to translate Marxism from econom-
ics into culture did not begin with the
student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes
back at least to the 1 920s and the writ-
ings of the Italian Communist Anto-
nio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a
group ofMarxists founded an institute
devoted to making the transition, the
Institute of Social Research (later
known as the Frankfurt School). One
of its founders, George Lukacs, stated
its purpose as answering the question,
“Who shall save us from Western Civi-
lization?”The Frankfurt School gained
profound influence in American uni-
versities after many of its leading lights
fled to the United States in the 1930s
to escape National Socialism in Ger-
many.
The Frankfurt School blended M arx
with Freud, and later influences (some
Fascist as well as Marxist) added lin-
guistics to create “Critical Theory” and
“deconstruction. ’’These in turn greatly
influenced education theory, and
“Political Correct-
ness” is in fact cul-
tural Marxism —
Marxism translated
from economic into
cultural terms.
66
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
through institutions of higher educa-
tion gave birth to what we now call “Po-
litical Correctness. ”The lineage is clear,
and it is traceable right back to Karl
Marx.
The parallels between cultural Marx-
ism and classical, economic Marxism
are also clear. Cultural Marxism, or
Political Correctness, shares with clas-
sical M arxism the vision of a “classless
society,” i.e., a society not merely of
equal opportunity, but equal condition.
Since that vision contradicts human
nature — because people are different,
they end up unequal, regardless of the
starting point — society will not accord
with it unless forced. So, under both
variants of Marxism, it is forced. This
is the first major parallel between clas-
sical and cultural Marxism: both are to-
talitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is fully
visible on campuses where “PC” has
taken over the college: freedom of
speech, of the press, and even of thought
are all eliminated.
The second major parallel is that
both classical, economic Marxism and
cultural Marxism \\nve single-factor ex-
planations of history. Classical Marxism
argues that all of history was determined
by ownership of the means of produc-
tion. Cultural Marxism says that his-
tory is wholly explained by which
groups — defined by sex, race and sexual
normality or abnormality — have power
over which other groups.
The third parallel is that both vari-
eties of Marxism declare certain groups
virtuous and others evil a priori , that is,
without regard for the actual behavior
of individuals. Classical Marxism de-
fines workers and peasants as virtuous
and the bourgeoisie (the middle class)
and other owners of capital as evil. Po-
litical Correctness defines blacks, His-
panics, Feminist women, homosexuals
and some additional minority' groups
as virtuous and white men as evil. (Po-
litical Correctness does not recognize
the existence of non-Feminist women,
and defines blacks who reject Political
Correctness as whites.)
The fourth parallel is in means: ex-
propriation. Economic Marxists, where
they obtained power, expropriated the
property of the bourgeoisie and handed
it to the state, as the “representative” of
the workers and the peasants. Cultural
Marxists, when they gain power (in-
cluding through our own government),
lay penalties on white men and others
who disagree with them and give privi-
leges to the groups they favor. Affirma-
tive action is an example.
Finally, both varieties of Marxists
employ a method of analysis designed to
show the correctness of their ideology in
every situation. For classical Marxists,
the analysis is economic. For cultural
Marxists, the analysis is linguistic:
deconstruction. Deconstruction
“proves” that any “text,” past or present,
illustrates the oppression of blacks,
women, homosexuals, etc. by reading
that meaning into the
words of the text (re-
gardless of their actual
meaning). Both meth-
ods are, of course,
phony analyses that
twist the evidence to
fit preordained con-
clusions, but they lend
a “scientific” air to the
ideology.
These parallels are
neither remarkable
nor coincidental. They
exist because Political
Correctness is directly
derived from classical Marxism, and is
in fact merely a variant of Marxism.
Through most of the history of Marx-
ism, cultural Marxists were “read out”
of the movement by classical, economic
Marxists. Today, with economic Marx-
ism dead, cultural Marxism has filled
its shoes. The medium has changed, hut
the message is the same: a society of
radical egalitarianism enforced by the
power of the state.
Political Correctness now looms
over American society like a colossus.
It has taken over both political parties
— the last Republican convention was
choreographed according to its dictates,
while cultural conservatives were shown
the door — and is enforced by many laws
and government regulations. It almost
totally controls the most powerful ele-
ment in our culture, the entertainment
industry. It dominates both public and
higher education; many a college cam-
pus is a small, ivy-covered North Ko-
rea. It has even captured the higher
clergy in many Christian churches.
Anyone in the Establishment who de-
parts from its dictates swiftly ceases to
be a member of the Establishment.
The remainder of this series of es-
says will explore the subject of Political
Correctness further: its history, its
method of analysis (deconstruction),
and the means by which it has attained
its influence, especially through educa-
tion.
But one more question must be ad-
dressed at the outset, the most vital
question: how can Americans combat
Political Correctness and retake their
society from the cultural Marxists?
To that end, it is not sufficient to
criticize Political Correctness. It toler-
ates a certain amount of criticism, even
gentle mocking. It does so through no
genuine tolerance for other points of
view, but in order to
disarm its opponents,
to let itself seem less
menacing than it is.
T he cultural Marxists
do not yet have total
power, and they are
too wise to appear to-
talitarian until their
victory is assured.
Rather, those who
would defeat cultural
Marxism must defy it.
They must use words
it forbids, and refuse
to use the words it
mandates; remember, sex is better than
gender. They must shout from the
housetops the realities it seeks to sup-
press, such as the facts that violent crime
is disproportionately committed by
blacks and that most cases of AIDS arc
voluntary, i.e., acquired from immoral
sexual acts. They must refuse to turn
their children over to the public schools.
Above all, those who would defy Po-
litical Correctness must behave accord-
ing to the old rules of our culture, not
the new rules the cultural Marxists lay
down. Ladies should be wives and
homemakers, not cops or soldiers, and
men should still hold doors open for
ladies. Children should not he born out
ofwedlock. Open homosexuals should
be shunned. Jurors should not accept
race as an excuse for murder.
Defiance spreads. When other
Americans see one person defy Politi-
cal Correctness and survive — and you
still can, for now — they are
emboldened. They are tempted to defy
it, too, and some do. The ripples from a
single act of defiance, of one instance of
walking up to the clay idol and break-
ing off its nose, can range far. There is
nothing the Politically Correct fear
more than open defiance, and for good
reason; it is their chief vulnerability.
That should lead cultural conservatives
Above all, those
who would defy Po-
litical Correctness
must behave accord-
ing to the old rules of
our culture, not the
new rules the cultural
Marxists lay down.
Vol. IV, No. 3
67
The RESISTER
to defy it at every turn.
While the hour is late, the battle is
not decided. Very few Americans real-
ize that Political Correctness is in fact
Marxism in a different set of clothes.
As that realization spreads, defiance will
spread with it. At present, Political
Correctness prospers by disguising it-
self. Through defiance, and through
education on our own part (which
should be part of every act of defiance),
we can strip away its camouflage and
reveal the Marxism beneath the win-
dow-dressing of “sensitivity,” “toler-
ance,” and “multiculturalism.”
Who dares, wins.
William Sturgis Lind is a native of
Cleveland, Ohio, born 9 July 1947. He
graduated magna cum laude, Phi Beta
Kappa from Dartmouth College in
1969 and received a Master’s Degree
in History from Princeton University
in 1971 . He worked as a legislative aid
for armed services for Senator Robert
Taft, Jr., of Ohio from 1973 through
1976 and held a similar position with
Senator Gary Hart of Colorado from
1977 through 1986.
Mr. Lind is author of the Maneuver
Warfare Handbook (Westview Press,
1985); co-author, with Gary Hart, of
Am erica Can Win: The Case for Military
Reform (Adler & Adler, 1 986); and co-
author, with William 1 1. Marshner, of
Cultural Conservatism: Toward a New
National Agenda (Free Congress Foun-
dation, 1987). He has written exten-
sively for both popular media, including
The Washington Post , The New York
Times , and Harpers , and professional
military journ als, including The Marine
Corps Gazette , U.S. Naval Institute Pro-
ceedings and Military Review.
68
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
- * : - • ■■ ■ ■ ■ - ; :
THE NEW TOTALITARIANS
Bosnia as a Mirror of America’s Future
Praise ForThis Book
In the cesspool of inverse morality that
defines the New Totalitarian, the most
debased and degenerate of the counter-
culture elite sank straight to the bottom
and became its leaders, and eventually our
government.
SFC Steven Michael Barry
(USA, Ret.)
Editor, The Resister
[The book] builds a convincing hy-
pothesis that the Clintons and their
Boomer elitists... will destroy the institu-
tions and traditions on which America was
founded....
ADM Thomas H. Moorer
(USN, Ret.)
Former Chairman, JCS
This important book clearly illustrates
how the politically correct are transform-
ing Marxism from economics into cul-
ture... when multiculturalism fails, as it
always will, the result will be ‘bayonets.’
William Lind, Host
“Next Revolution,” NET-TV
by
Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson
This book reveals how Bill Clinton and his ‘New Totalitarians 7
are destroying Americas trusted institutions, including the
nations military. Unless turned back, we will witness the collapse
of our nation and with it our American Civilization. The New
Totalitarians reveals:
The true reason Clinton committed troops to Bosnia
The parallels between Yugoslavia and America
Who these ‘NewTotalitarians 7 really are
The ‘New Totalitarians 77 agitprop agenda
How they are destroying the U.S. military from within
$ 20.00
RESISTER Books
PO Box 35046
Fayetteville, NC 28303
Cash, money order, or check. (Allow 5 weeks for delivery.)
For anybody who dreams of the day
when Communists twist in the wind... this
book is a necessary reference.
SFC Steven Michael Barry
(USA, Ret.)
Editor, The Resister
The Christie Institute’s brand of legal
terrorism will continue until Congress
corrects the current flaws in RICO.
Robert K. Dornan
LEGAL TERRORISM
by
Dr. Susan L.M. Huck
With the growth of the more violent incidents of terrorism
throughout the world, little attention has been paid to a more
insidious form of activity which Dr. Huck defines as “Legal
Terrorism . 77 Dr. Huck defines legal terrorism as a form of political
warfare... designed to ruin a target 7 s life... via the courts by filing
politically motivated civil suits against [patriots]. The primary
practitioner of legal terrorism has been the Christie Institute... a
‘liberal 7 church-funded tax exempt group.
$7.00 (softcover) $14.00 (hardcover)
RESISTER Books
PO Box 35046
Fayetteville, NC 28303
Cash, money order, or check. (Allow 5 weeks for delivery.)
Vol. IV, No. 3
69
The RESISTER
Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson
$15.00 to:
RESISTER Books
PO Box 35046
Fayetteville, NC 28303
Cash, money order, or check.
(Allow 5 weeks for delivery)
Praise for “From Trust to Terror”
No matter how inane, or destructive to the military ‘liberal’ and feminist
social engineering fads are, the Starred Cowards will compel their imple-
mentation and punish those who dare speak out against the destruction.
SFC Steven Michael Barry (USA, Ret.)
Editor, The Resister
In his latest book, Dr. Atkinson presents irrefutable evidence that ‘politi-
cally correct’ policies imposed upon naval aviation... have enforced double
standards while making a mockery of the truth.... This is a blockbuster of a
book and a ‘must read’ for patriotic Americans.
RADM C.A. ‘Mark’ Hill, Jr. (USN, Ret.)
Former carrier commanding officer and Asst. Chief of Naval Opera-
tions for Manpower
CDR Atkinson discloses the U.S. military’s biggest secret, the Stalinist
atmosphere in which America’s fighting men must now work and suffer,
forbidden to say what they know is the truth: that women have no legiti-
mate place on a battlefield or a warship.
William S. Lind, 1 lost
‘Next Revolution’ on NET-TV and former staffer to Senators Gary
1 1 art and Robert A. Taft, Jr.
WOMEN in the MILITARY
Flirting With Disaster
by
Brian Mitchell
Finally, the real — and devastating — story of the disastrous impact women
have on U.S. military readiness!
Captain Brian Mitchell reveals what top military leaders are afraid to ad-
mit. America’s effort to integrate women into the U.S. armed forces has seri-
ously jeopardized our national security. Read firsthand:
The feminization of the military — a failure from V
Storm
West Point to Desert
BRIAN MITCHELL
The true and horrifying story of women in Operation Desert Storm
“Sensitivity training” for drill sergeants turns boot camp into day care
Service academy honor codes corrupted — to protect co-education
Senior officers forced to lie — or retire — to keep the truth buried
Please send me copies of Women in the Military.
$ 20.00
RESISTER Books
PO Box 35046
Fayetteville, NC 28303
Cash, money order, or check.
(Allow 5 weeks for delivery)
Name
Address
City/State/Zip
70
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
American Renaissance
Who has made race a problem, and why? What are the
real consequences of demands for “tolerance,” “diver-
sity” and “inclusiveness”?
American Renaissance is where some of America’s most
thoughtful writers publish what they really think about:
• Research on racial differences
• The impact of immigration
• The demographic future
• Why “multi-culturalism” is a fraud
• Race and crime
For a free sample issue,
call or write:
American Renaissance
PO Box 527
Oakton, VA 22124
(703)716-0900
RESISTER Distributors
Many of The Resisters readers, for
one reason or another, don’t like being 1
“on a list.” The individuals and businesses listed below are regular distributors
who may have copies of sold-out back
points of purchase for current issues.
issues, or who may serve as convenient
The Silent .45
Michael Paul; McClinton
PO Box 4588
general delivery
Santa Rosa, CA 95402
Girard Post Office
(www.silent45.com)
Girard, Pennsylvania [16417]
Bohica Concepts
Michael Galatin
PO Box 546
407 Avenue H.
Randele, WA 98377
South Huston, TX 77587
Paladin Arms
C.I. Soft
320 Main Street
PO Box 6749
Longmont, CO 89501
BHN Enterprises
Ocala, FL 34478-6749
(www.gate.net/~rmpl)
1347 Worstead Dr.
Paul Fromm
Fayetteville, NC 28314
Box 332
Rexdale
Wildmans
Ontario, M9W 5L3
2879 South Main St.
Kennesaw, GA 30144
Canada
Jamison
Attorney at Law
The right of free speech.
The right to remain silent.
Don’t get them confused!
Remain silent
and call:
Kevin L. Jamison
5440 N. Oak
Kansas City, MO
64118
(816) 455-2669 voice
(816) 455-6011 fax
Criminal Law Teacher
Special Forces Veteran
Weapons & Firearms Law
Criminal Defense
Immigration Law
Vol. IV, No. 3
71
The RESISTER
The Silent .45
Patriot Books, Videos & Magazines
at SUPER DISCOUNT PRICES!
THE BEST
LITTLE WAR HOUSE
IN
KENNESAW
Sporadic
List
Of
Goodies
$2
Federal
Unidentified Confederate
South Main Street
Kennesaw
Georgia 30144
( 404 ) 422-1785
Back issues of The Resister - Discounted!
Waco: Rules of Engagement - Discounted!
Unintended Consequences - Discounted!
Unintended Consequences Poster ■ - 30% Off!
19 Patriot videos - Discounted! (Hot pirate copies)
Credit Card orders accepted - (707) 523-1434
Monday-Friday 10AM-2PM
Check out our Website: http://www.silent45.com
Request your free catalog from: The Silent .45
P.O. Box 4588, Santa Rosa, CA 95402
Idaho Obi
server
Demanding Accountability
The editors, writers, supporters and contributors who make
The Idaho Observer possible are all deeply concerned for the
future of our country. America is in trouble because the people
of this nation trusted their elected officials to protect their
interests and then took a nap while those same officials
abused that trust. Unless we as a free people wake up
and take responsibility for preserving our
Constitutional rights we will inevitably lose them.
Unlike the dominant media, which
chooses to report the news through
special interest filters to guarantee
our progressive and collective slide
into socialistic slavery, The Idaho
Observer reports news with the
understanding that a truly free press
is the only thing which stands
between Americans and tyranny.
For a copy of The Idaho Observer, call (208) 777-7888,
or write: PO Box 1806, Post Falls, ID 83877
($1 for postage appreciated but not required)
Email: observer@dmi.net http://www.prollberty.com/observer
Lt. Gen. Dent Myert CSA
No Quarter
RESISTER
RADIO
- On -
Radio 1230 - The Fort
(WFAI 1230 AM)
Wednesdays
1800 - 1900 R
Colonial Radio Group, Inc.
346 Wagoner Dr., Ste. 105
Fayetteville, NC 28303
72
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
An excerpt from the “Eugenic Manifesto . 39
For a free copy of the “Eugenic Manifesto,” from which the below is an excerpt,
please write to: P.O. Box 72, New Concord, KT 42076
T he subtitle of Darwin’s Origin of Species is “On the
origin of species by means of natural selection or the
preservation of favored races in the struggle for life”*
The human race has evolved to its present state of intelligence
and power because of “the preservation of favored races in the
struggle for life.”* “Race”* is the central mechanism of evolu-
tion that has created all living things. “The preservation of
favored races”* is a simple process to understand, but its effects
over time are awesome. If we examine the process, we find that
at some stage in evolution we can observe a group of individu-
als of a single species which exist in an area segregated from
other members of that same species. As a result of chance muta-
tion, there occur genetic variations in some members of that
segregated group. As the generations continue to reproduce,
these genetic variations accumulate in the progeny of that seg-
regated group. At first, the accumulated genetic variations do
not make the segregated group different enough from the orig-
inal species to justify calling the segregated group a new species
or even a new “favored race”* of the original species. However,
after many generations, the segregated group or tribe which had
accumulated sufficient genetic differences would be called a
new “race”* of the original species. Over time, these newly
developed segregated races continue to accumulate genetic dif-
ferences through chance mutation, variation, etc. The “fav-
ored”* variations increase the survivability of the “race”* which
carries them.
Once this new “favored race”* has become different enough
from the original species, it is called a new species. Hence the
subtitle, “On the origin of species by means of natural selection
or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.”*
There is really no probability that the “races”* would be equal.
In fact, the whole notion runs directly counter to all evolution-
ary theory and to the whole science of biology.
Given the laws of biology, it would be a great surprise if the
average strength or intelligence of one “race”* was found to be
exactly equal to the average strength or intelligence of a differ-
ent “race.”* Despite the controversy surrounding “race,”* it is
not particularly useful to know which “race”* happens, as the
result of an accident of evolutionary development, to have
greater average strength or greater average intelligence because
one could not predict from this average that any particular indi-
vidual member of one “race,” was going to be superior or infe-
rior to any particular individual member of a different “race.”*
There are superior and inferior, strong and weak, intelligent and
unintelligent individuals in all “races.”* Regardless of “racial”*
averages, one would still have to judge each individual on the
basis of individual merit without reference to the average of the
group to which he happened to belong. Only by judging peo-
ple as individuals, could we avoid injustice and enable all people
to make the maximum contribution to society. There is no such
thing as a superior “race”* per se, in the sense that every mem-
ber of one “race”* is superior to every member of another
For a free copy of the i( Eugenic Manifesto,” from which the
above is an excerpt, please write to: P.O. Box 72, New
Concord, KY 42076
“race.”* Neither is there such a thing as “racial”* equality in the
sense that the average strength or intelligence of one “race”* is
equal to the average strength or intelligence of every other
“race.”* By judging people as individuals, one could perhaps
identify a (superior) sociobiological class which might be a cross
section of all “races”* although probably not in equal propor-
tion. The only way you could have a [superior race] would be if
a “favored race”* evolved into and became the next more high-
ly evolved species above homosapiens, in which case it would
become a superior species. Eugenics is a moral commitment not
a racial affiliation and any “race”* that adopted a eugenic pro-
gram could, given sufficient time, evolve into and become the
next more highly evolved species above homo sapiens. It is our
hope that all “races”* will accept that moral responsibility and
accomplish that objective, but it can not be accomplished with-
in the political, philosophical and religious milieu of the 20th
century.
* Origin Of Species, Chari.ES Darwin
Vol. IV, No. 3
73
The RESISTER
...I drew the tides of men into my hands ,
And wrote my will across the sky in stars.
T.E. Lawrence
Books
...
If we advert to the nature of republican
government , we shall fnd that the censorial
power is in the people over the government,
and not in the government over the people.
Janies Madison, 1794
OUR ROYALTY
by
SFC Steven M. Barry, USA (Ret.)
The Satori and the New Mandarins. Dr. Adrian H. Krieg. Hallberg
Publishing Corporation, PO Box 23985, Tampa, Florida, 33623. ISBN 0-87319-
044-4. Trade paper, 341 pages, index. $14.95.
Planned Opportunism
O pen any newspaper, or news
magazine (I can only speak to
television news from memory
because I will not watch television) and
the same themes emerge, repeated over
and over like a drumbeat artillery bar-
rage. Just as an artillery barrage will
employ many different types of guns to
reduce a single target, the many differ-
ent propaganda themes also have a spe-
cific target — your mind. And just as a
barrage requires a fire control officer
to coordinate the fires of different bat-
teries, so do the propaganda themes
you’re daily subjected to require coor-
dination. These themes, in case you
hadn’t noticed, are almost exclusively
emotive. You’re not expected to read
any given article, merely glance at it and
react to it. You’re not expected to think
about the ideas espoused in the article,
merely feel if they’re right or wrong.
Even if you disagree, you’re expected
to feel disagreement. You’re not, how-
ever, expected to articulate, in principle,
why you disagree. Disagreement, you
see, “creates an atmosphere” of “divi-
siveness. ’’Television “news” in particu-
lar is designed to invoke emotive
reactions through almost strobe-like
flashing of visual images (the barrage)
adjusted for effect by the well rehearsed
facial expressions of talking head pun-
dits burping five seconds at-a-time stac-
cato-like bromides throughout your 30
second attention span.
As I first began researching the
causes and origins of America’s destruc-
tion, my initial focus was on the evil
ideologies that most people today take
for granted. Collectivism, statism, al-
truism — these are easy concepts to
identify. The propo-
nents of those evil ide-
ologies are also easy to
identify. Not so easy to
identify is the move
...you can’t help but
glimpse, however
ment Of those concepts fleetingly in the deep
between disparate in- ° J r
intellectual shadows,
a guiding “hand,” a
controlling “voice,” a
subtle “movement” —
a will.
stitutions in American
culture, and tracing
their evolution and
crossbreeding over
generations. The in-
sidious influence of
those ideas over time
has been in the way ____ _
they are presented as
perfectly reasonable solutions to “anti-
social” individualism, liberty, and self-
interest.
When I began my researches 1 dis-
counted the idea of a “conspiracy” to
deprive us of our lives, liberty and prop-
erty. I approached my researches from
the point of view that evil ideas feed off
each other and breed opportunists who
simply take advantage of the conse-
quences of a previously accepted evil
idea to spread their own. If proponents
of an evil idea, say, globalism, congre-
gate in one place, say, the Council on
Foreign Relations, that’s only because
people will be attracted to associate (or
be invited to associate) with those who
think as they do which provides fertile
soil in which to cultivate their own evil.
That makes them easier to identify, and
their activities easier to trace. But that
hardly constitutes a conspiracy — which
is a combination for criminal purpose
— because they (and others like them)
state very plainly what their purpose is;
destroy America. In most respects, I
still hold my original view — insofar as
identifiable groups with a stated agenda
are concerned.
And yet, in many instances, as you
observe the workings of those myriad
organizations historically and contem-
poraneously with respect to “the popu-
lar delusions of crowds,” you can’t help
but glimpse, however
fleetingly in the deep
intellectual shadows, a
guiding “hand, ’’aeon-
trolling “voice,” a
subtle “movement” —
a will.
In May 1993, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff
issued Memorandum
of Policy No. 30 that,
in part, expanded “in-
formation warfare” to
include psychological
operations designed
to influence the “emo-
tions, motives, objective reasoning, and
ultimately the behavior” of others. 1 In
late 1993 (note the close timing) ap-
peared the book War and Anti-War by
1960s Marxists, Alvin and Heidi
Toffler. Expanding their Third Wave
drivel into military affairs following
Bush’s War, the Tofflers, who have no
military background, but true to their
Marxist mystic-materialism roots, de-
clared that information is a thing and
that technology based “knowledge strat-
egy,” will be the key to victory in “third
wave warfare.” Now, soldiers in gen-
eral, and Generals in particular, are
materialists at heart. After all, “stuff”
does make war go, and this isn’t the first
74
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
time a materialistic “revolution in mili-
tary affairs” has fevered the minds of
doctrine writers. (Airplanes, tanks, and
nuclear weapons were all predicted to
“make war obsolete.”) Within weeks of
War and Anti-War appearing, the pro-
fessional military journals were
parroting “Information Warfare” as the
panacea for all the military’s doctrinal
ills, the computer as the weapon of the
future, and information (spoken of as a
thing ) as a “strategic asset” requiring
centralized control and manipulation.
Not long thereafter began public
“concerns” about Internet pornography.
FBI “concerns” about strong private
encryption, ADL “concerns” that “ex-
tremists” had access to e-mail and
Usenet, and United Nations proposals
to establish a worldwide network of “In-
formation Intervention” jamming sta-
tions to jam “inflammatory speech” and
broadcast instead “messages of toler-
ance .” 2 Books that contradict “New
Truth” are disappearing from library
shelves, and publishers refuse to print
books that self-appointed censors dis-
approve of. The lexicon is under direct
assault by aggrieved minorities. Mean-
while, the Telescreen increasingly be-
comes the chosen medium of
spreading cultural Marxism and rela-
tivism, degenerate personal behavior as
“alternate life styles,” random dialogue
as “humor,” and demands for more
“child ren’s programming” extolling the
virtues of — that’s right — “tolerance.”
Although here only means of commu-
nication are illustrated, everything de-
pendent upon means of
communication are similarly infected.
On a mundane level much of this is
merely opportunism, nihilists feeding
off the successes of their predecessors.
Yet, none of this “just happened.” Evil
ideas don’t spontaneously arise. They
are set in motion to run their course. If
they begin to falter, “change agents” step
in to give them a push and keep them
moving; books extolling their “virtues”
suddenly appear to lend them credence;
talk shows are suddenly buzzing with
“experts” who ridicule opposition and
assure us that the change was “inevi-
table” and therefore resistance is reac-
tionary and some form of mental
illness; newspapers and magazines re-
lentlessly push the idea through selec-
tion of stories ( and sources); and
“national leaders” press for legislation
demanding an end to “gridlock” and
“time for action” while “grassroots or-
ganizations” demand an end to this or
progress for that.
Systematically, methodically, relent-
lessly, “grassroots” pressure from be-
low for “change” and “legislative”
pressure from above for “reform” un-
leash the evil idea. Even if it’s watered
down, if a “compromise” is reached, the
unyielding demand for
further “reform” be-
gins anew. Yet, you
can’t help wonder if the
compromise (which
impels further “below”
and “above” pressure)
wasn’t the intended
outcome in the first
place. Multiply a single
legislative “reform” by
the number of ripples
it bounces off society
— some canceling
each other, others
magnifying each other
— by the sheer num-
ber of “reforms” de-
manded in any given
legislative session that
eventually touches
some facet of your life,
no matter how indi-
rectly. Then ask yourself why some face-
less grocery clerk is always demanding
to see your papers.
The Hidden Organizers
D o people really sit around and
plot our destruction? Sure they
do. Take for example the En-
vironmental Grantmaker’s Association.
The officers of several interlocking
(Rockefeller funded) foundations as-
semble annually to study opponents of
the federal government’s Western land
grab and recommend policies to the
Bureau of Land Management about
how to discredit property owners and
keep them tied up in court until they
are bankrupt. Not surprisingly, the
Bureau of Land Management is begin-
ning to arm themselves to the teeth in
the face of opposition from property
owners to having wolves and Grizzly
bears reintroduced into areas where
humans had eliminated them in favor
of more productive food animals, and
amazingly (to the feds), property own-
ers are objecting to having their prop-
erty confiscated to create a “migration
corridor” for buffalo. The plan is to de-
populate the entire high plains. Now, it
would be somewhat more comforting
if we could believe that the officers of
the foundations that make up the En-
vironmental Grantmaker’s Association
collectively woke up one morning,
yawned, stretched and simultaneously
concluded that it was time to depopu-
late huge tracts of Western land. But
that’s not how it happens. Ideas like
“sustainability” and
“wilding” are thought
out well in advance/
and not by minions
like the foundation of-
ficers of the Environ-
mental Grantmaker’s
Association. That is
the point of Dr.
Krieg’s book, The
Satori and the New
Mandarins.
In the introduction
Dr. Krieg describes
the “Satori” as his
“designation for the
ruling elite. ’’The word
“has its origins in feu-
dalists Japan and
means ‘the hidden or-
ganizers’” (xv). The
“Mandarins” on the
other hand “were the
people and organizations which at-
tended to day-to-day operations for the
Satori” (ibid).
What initially attracted my attention
to Dr. Krieg’s The Satori and the New
Mandarins was his analysis of George
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s triadic dia-
lectic. Unfortunately Dr. Krieg makes
the classic error of describing I legel as
a statist. Hegel was neither statist nor a
collectivist, and (having read quite a bit
of Hegel in my misspent youth) he
would have strongly disagreed with
Marx’s materialistic perversion of his
dialectic. Hegel was a constitutional
monarchist and a theist. When he spoke
of“The State incarnates the divine idea
upon earth,” he was contrasting Volk ,
the nation-state as family, civil society,
and their sublation, the state, to
Volkgeist, a mind or spirit of a people
expressed by Vorstellung y loosely inter-
preted philosophically as pictorial (i.e.,
religious) thinking (in this case, national
identity). Hegel distinguished between
civil society and the state. Civil society
was the distinction between “us and
them.” He sees this distinction elimi-
nated in what he calls “the state,” in
which rulers and ruled are the same,
not by external determination, rather
Multiply a single
legislative “reform”
by the number of
ripples it bounces off
society... by the sheer
number of “reforms”
demanded in any
given legislative ses-
sion.... Then ask
yourself why some
faceless grocery clerk
is always demanding
to see your papers.
Vol. IV, No. 3
75
The RESISTER
by self-determination — in other
words, freedom (although not in the
Lockean sense).
Dr. Krieg’s mistake is understand-
able however, because most popular
interpretations of Hegel derive from
the random bits his German successor,
Karl Marx (who was influenced more
by Hegel’s student Ludwig Feuerbach
than by Hegel), picked out of the body
of Hegel’s work and twisted to his own
materialistic purposes; particularly the
1 legelian notion that history is a mov-
ing force that has an end. Yet, despite
his error, and even using a misunder-
standing of the Hegelian dialectic, 4 Dr.
Krieg hit upon an observable fact re-
garding the steady erosion of our liber-
ties:
First, the desired outcome of the
dialectic is generated. Second, two
radically opposite concepts are structured
and presented to the public. Third, the
two opposing radical views are moderated
so as to become the Satori outcome,
(xvii).
This is the essence of“pressure from
below, pressure from above.” No revo-
lutionary change, just calculated, me-
thodical compromising, “playing the
citizenry like marionettes, one against
the other, through the vehicles of Class
Envy , Racial Strife , Political Separation ,
Kulturkriegand Gender Conflict , we are
separated and played against each
other” (xvii) [Original emphasis]. Dr.
Krieg illustrates this process through-
out Chapter 1, “Manipulation,” using
such examples of NAFTA and the at-
tempt to nationalize medical care.
An important theme that runs
throughout Dr. Krieg’s work, is that
those whom he describes as the Satori
are the guiding force behind the United
State’s maneuvering to become the
“New World Order.” The bromides
about “democracy” and “free markets”
that dominate U.S. foreign policy are
little more than propaganda and decep-
tion to distract public attention away
from what are, in the balance, socialist
policies. He also describes the manipu-
lation of the American population
through incessant Kulturkrieg , which
pits growing numbers of Balkanized
groups against each other as they jockey
for political favor and increasing gov-
ernment handouts through judicial ac-
tivism.
Environmentalism, according to Dr.
Krieg, is one of the key vehicles of
Satori manipulation of legislative regu-
lation of business and industry. He
makes the observation that business-
men and industrialists are among the
largest contributors of donations to
“Green” foundations that disburse
funds to groups who then turn around
and use the money to attack business
and industry. For example, Dwayne
Andreas, who through Archer Daniels
Sc Midland contributed $250,000 to
underwrite the Gorbachev Foundation’s
State of the World Forum in 1995, is
also a member of the “Council of the
Wise” that includes such eco-
illuminaries as George Bush, Ted
Turner, Bill Gates, and Allan Cranston.
Dr. Krieg points out that the so
called “Free Trade” hyped by the Es-
tablishment media and
economic pundits
bears no resemblance
to free markets de-
scribed by laissez faire
and Austrian School
economists. What is
shopped to the public
as “ Free Trade” is “gov-
ernment managed
trade, free of import/
export tariffs... it would
be more accurate to
term NAFTA etc., as State Monopoly
Capitalism, the beneficiaries of which
are a favored elite” who are deliberately
transferring American business and
industry overseas while imposing crip-
pling environmental and “safety” regu-
lations on their competitors in the
United States. Quoting South Carolina
industrialist Roger Milliken:
Middle America is being transformed
into an underclass by trade policies that
benefit only Wall Street and ignore the
well being of small town America. I reject
arguments that free trade can create jobs
to offset those lose to overseas
competition and dismiss suggestions that
if an American turns to protectionism it
will provoke retaliatory acts by other
nations. No one can retaliate, we have
the market in which everyone wants to
sell. (69)
In other words, foreign markets
need us, we don’t need foreign markets.
Then why would the Satori, through the
offices of their minions, the Manda-
rins, deliberately push for policies that
are specifically designed to destroy
American businesses and industry? It’s
really very simple. They hate us. They
consider themselves a ruling class be-
holden to nothing save their “divine
right” to rule and have no other aim
than to rule us as our “postmodern” feu-
dal aristocracy. To do that, they must
reduce us to peasants.
This latter aim is accomplished
through the Satori’s “Mandarins” The
Mandarins are those who I refer to in
these pages as the Establishment
apparatchik and their nomenklatura mas-
ters (the ruling class, not to be confused
with the Royalty — Dr. Krieg’s Satori).
The Mandarins are those who belong
to or who cooperate in the aims of such
organizations as the Council on For-
eign Relations, The Order, the Trilat-
eral Commission, and the
Bilderbergers. Of the four, the CFR is
the largest. The Order
the most secretive, the
TC is an outgrowth of
CFR composed of its
elitists, and the
Bilderbergers are
globalists from both
the United States and
Europe who make
policy for the Interna-
tional Monetary Fund
and the World Bank.
It is impossible, since
1945, to be elected president of the
United States without membership in
at least the CFR (preferably, several of
these groups), and the CFR has, since
1945, virtually dominated every key
cabinet position in the federal govern-
ment and for practical purposes every
major media source. While CFR
Chairman of the Board, Peter G.
Peterson, grudgingly admits that the
CFR was an organization of the “New
York liberal elite,” he emphasizes that
CFR now reaches “well beyond New
York to Washington and the country”
as a non-ideological think tank." In
other words, they’re now controlling
both sides of every issue. Remember
folks, bipartisan means single party
rule, and “non-ideological” means of
one mind.
According to Dr. Krieg’s sources, the
minutes of the first meeting of the
Bilderbergers in May 1954 established
their purpose “...To evolve an interna-
tional order which will look beyond the
present day crisis, when time is ripe for
our present concepts of world affairs to
be extended to the whole world.” (218)
[Emphasis added.] (The “present cri-
They hate us. They
consider themselves a
ruling class beholden
to nothing save their
“divine right” to
rule...
76
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
sis” referred to was containment of
communism . ) The Trilateral Commis-
sion, founded in July 1972, contains in
its founding charter a commitment to,
“Close Trilateral cooperation... in man-
aging the world economy [!]... and
peaceful evolution of the Global Sys-
tem.” (203)
Closing
T he Satori and the New Man da
rins contains several insightful
connections between the activi-
ties of our self anointed nomenklatura
and the disintegration of American so-
ciety in general and American sover-
eignty in particular. Despite his popular
( and incorrect) analysis of Hegelian
philosophy, he did hit upon the correct
(in my opinion) assessment that the re-
sults of legislation attained through
“pressure from below, pressure from
above” are known in advance, and those
who push such legislation — through
either blackmail or extortion — have
already prepared the ground to take
advantage of the inevitable compro-
mise.
Dr. Krieg reluctantly admits that a
comprehensive listing of just who the
“Satori” (let’s call them our Central
Committee) are would be mere guess-
work, although he does include an ac-
ceptably comprehensive listing of the
“Mandarins” (our nomenklatura). But
Dr. Krieg does provide us with clue to
their identity:
The real truth of the matter is, as you
and I know, that a financial element in
the large centers has owned the
government of the U.S. since the days
of Andrew Jackson.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
23 November 1931 letter to
“Colonel” Edward Mandel House
In all, The Satori and the New Man-
darins is worth the price for its com-
prehensive treatment of the
interlocking activities of the “Manda-
rins” and the fresh insight Dr. Krieg
brings to a difficult and often maligned
subject.
NOTES:
Alvin and Heidi Toffler, War and
Anti-War , (Warner Books, New York,
1993). Page 165.
Jamie F. Metzel, “Information
Intervention,” Foreign Affairs, November/
December 1997, page 15ff.
In the case of“wilding” the West
and pushing landowners off their property,
think back to 1958 and Laurence
Rockefeller’s “concern” for “outdoor recre-
ation.” Yes, “they” think that far ahead, and
they always start with something “perfectly
reasonable” that bears no apparent relation
to the Goal.
The Hegalian triadic dialectic
proceeds as follows. One starts with an ini-
tial proposition (thesis) which generally
proves inadequate and produces its opposite
(antithesis). This also proves inadequate and
the opposites produce a synthesis. This lat-
ter is called by WtgzXAufhcbung (sublation)
of the thesis and synthesis. In other words,
what is rational in the thesis and synthesis is
retained, and the irrational is rejected. This
process may be repeated ad infinitum. A
quick example: There is an abstract right
(thesis) which is stoic and legalistic but has
no reference to the individual’s conscience,
and morality (antithesis) which is referenced
solely by the individual’s conscience and is
therefore purely subjective as it fails to rec-
ognize that the right thing is also the ratio-
nal thing. These are sublated as ethics
(synthesis), the concept of right as enter-
tained by society, which is not abstract, but
is binding on all within society (which mo-
rality is not).
Council on Foreign Relations,
1997 Annual Report, page 6.
Have
You Ever
Wondered
About . . .
• Why the Government bailed out Mexico?
• Why you can't seem to find an American-made
product in the store?
• Why America's Middle East policy makes no
sense?
• Why the Government institutes more gun laws?
• Who are the stockholders of the Federal Reserve?
• Why congress approved the NAFTA agreement
without one single congressman having read it?
• Who really controls the American Government?
• What organization completely dominates our
State Department?
• What is the relationship between the CFR, TC,
Bilderbeigers and Bones?
• How the EC and NAFTA are the same thing?
Only by reading:
The Satori And The
New Mandarins
will you learn the answers
to these gnd many other
questions. As Ezra Pound said:
“Until you know who has lent
what to whom, you know
nothing whatever of politics . . .
or history.”
ISBN #0-87319-044-4
342 pages - $14.95
List price, $14.95 at all bookstores or
$16.95 postpaid from the publisher,
HALLBERG PUBLISHING CORPORATION,
P.O. Box 23985, Tampa, Florida 33623 For
additional information call 800-633-7627
or Fax 800-253-7323.
Vol. IV, No. 3
77
The RESISTER
“THE MERCILESS
IN DIAN SAVAG ES’’
A Fresh Perspective on How the West was
Won — and From Whom.
by
Steven Schwamenfeld
Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the
High Plains, 1865-1879. Thomas
Goodrich (Stackpole Books, 1997). 340
pp. S32.95.
T he American Indian has always
had champions among whites.
Their voices have generally
been loudest in areas furthest removed
from Indians in their natural state —
perhaps not surprisingly since tradi-
tional Indian life involved almost
perpetual warfare. Thus, as America’s
political frontiers moved West, East-
erners came to see Indians not as, in
George Washington s words, “beasts of
prey” with an insatiable appetite for
bloodshed, hut as victims of the white
man’s greed’ and ‘brutality.’ With the
disappearance of the frontier all
Americans could take this view, and in
the last 30 years book after hook has
promoted guilt over the fate of the In-
dian, while regretting our nation’s very
existence.
Thomas Goodrich has boldly at-
tempted to redress this imbalance with
Scalp Dance , a historical narrative largely
drawn from first-hand accounts by sol-
diers and settlers who faced the Indian
menace on the Great Plains. For
Americans reared on tales of Wounded
Knee and Sand Creek, a better under-
standing of Indian warfare casts these
famous massacres in an entirely differ-
ent light.
Hereditary Enemies
C ol. William Collins com-
manded men who faced the
Comanche, Kiowa, Arapaho,
Cheyenne and Sioux. Of these tribes,
he wrote: “War with somebody... is the
natural state of an Indian people. Ev-
ery tribe has some hereditary enemies
with whom it is always at war.... It is by
war that they obtain wealth, position
and influence with the tribe.”
What modern accounts of the
“noble” Indian warrior
commonly leave out is
his manner of making
war, and it is the eye-
witness and contem-
porary records that
both enrich Mr.
Goodrich’s book and
ma ke it sometimes
painful to read. Mili-
tary historian John
Keegan has written
that “there is a cruelty
in the warfare of some
pre-Columbian
peoples of North and
Central America that has no parallel
elsewhere in the world,” hut it would
seem that this barbarity continued well
into the 19th century.
Col. Henry Carrington wrote: “The
great real fact is, that these I ndians take
alive when possible, and slowly torture.”
Enemy dead who could not be tortured
were horribly mutilated. This is how
Col. Carrington describes the battle-
field where, on December 21,1 866, 80
American troops were annihilated by a
combined force of Sioux and Cheyenne
under Chief Red Cloud:
Eyes torn out and laid on the rocks;
noses cut off; ears cut off; chins hewn
off; teeth chopped out... brains taken out
and placed on rocks with other members
of the body; entrails taken out and
exposed; hands cut off; feet cut off; arms
taken out from sockets; private parts
severed and indecently placed on the
person... skulls severed in every form,
from chin to crown; muscles of calves,
thighs, stomach, breast, back, arms and
cheek taken out. Punctures upon every
sensitive part of the body, even to the
soles of the feet and palms of the hand.
All this only approximates the whole
truth.
A few of the soldiers had managed
to kill themselves before being cap-
tured. Many — probably most — were
taken alive and tortured to death. This
was the potential fate of every soldier
on the Plains, and it is hardly surpris-
ing that it was standard practice to “save
the last bullet for yourself.”
The aftermath of the Little Bighorn
massacre was entirely typical. Private
Jacob Adams wrote: “The men... were...
scalped and horribly mutilated. Some
... were decapitated,
while many bodies
were lackingfeet.... As
I walked over the field
1 saw many unfortu-
nate dead who had
been propped into a
sitting position and
used as targets by
bowmen who had
proceeded to stick
them full of steel-
headed arrows
Some bodies were set
up on their knees and
elbows and their hind
parts had been shot full of arrows.”
Most of the bodies were naked, and
many had been elaborately savaged.
Isaiah Dorman, an interpreter, and the
only black in Custer’s party, was treated
with particular contempt. A witness
wrote: “Isaiah lay with his breast full of
arrows and an iron picket pin thrust
through his testicles into the ground,
pinning him down.... Dorman’s penis
was cut off and stuffed in his mouth,
which was regarded among the Indians
as the deepest insult possible.... His
body had been ripped open, and a cof-
fee pot and cup which he carried with
him were filled with his blood. What
devilish purpose the Indians had in
catching his blood I do not know.”
Major Marcus Reno, who had rid-
den with Custer, wrote of a scene he
found in the Indian village near the
battleground: “One ghastly find was
near the center of the field where three
teepee poles were standing upright in
the ground in the form of a triangle.
The American In-
dian has always had
champions among
whites. Their voices
have generally been
loudest in areas fur-
thest removed from
Indians...
78
Vol. IV, No. 3
The RESISTER
On top of each were inverted camp
kettles, while below them on the grass
were the heads of three men.... The three
heads were placed within the triangle,
facing each other in a horrible sightless
stare.”
“Noble” Savages
yl Tnites who observed Indians
^/ %/ at their grisly work de-
▼ ▼ scribed them as expert
butchers of human meat. A drummer
named James Lockwood wrote of the
deaths of two soldiers outside
Julesburg, Colorado: “In less time than
it takes to read this, they were stripped
of their clothing, mutilated in a man-
ner which would emasculate them, if
alive, and their scalps torn from their
heads.”
Far more gratifying than mutilating
the dead was torturing the living. This
was the ultimate aim of Indian warfare
and was considered a religious act. Col.
Richard Dodge left this by no means
exceptional account of the fate of one
captive: “He was stripped of his cloth-
ing, laid on his back on the ground and
his arms and legs, stretched to the ut-
most, were fastened by thongs to pins
driven into the ground. In this state he
was not only helpless, but almost mo-
tionless. All this time the Indians pleas-
antly talked to him. It was all a kind of
joke. Then a small fire was built near
one of his feet. When that was so
cooked as to have little sensation, an-
other fire was built near the other foot;
then the legs and arms and body of the
whole person was crisped. Finally a
small fire was built on the naked breast
and kept up until life was extinct.”
It is worth noting that Indians did
not single out whites for cruelty; they
treated them just as they did other In-
dians. Mr. Goodrich quotes a Crow
chief explaining to General George
Crook his hatred for the Sioux: “They
hunt upon our mountains. They fish in
our streams. They have stolen our
horses. They have murdered our
squaws, our children.... We want back
our lands. We want their women for
our slaves, to work for us as our women
have had to work for them. We want
their horses for our young men, and
their mules for our squaws. The Sioux
have trampled upon our hearts. We shall
spit upon their scalps.”
As this passage indicates, Indians
did not restrict their slaughter to com-
batants; many white homesteaders were
killed without regard to sex or age.
Capt. Henry Palmer left this terrible
account of the aftermath of a raid: “We
found the bodies of three little children
who had been taken by the heels by the
Indians and swung around against the
log cabin, beating their heads to a jelly.
Found the hired girl some fifteen rods
from the ranch staked out on the prai-
rie, tied by her hands and feet, naked,
body full of arrows and horribly
mangled.”
Mr. Goodrich devotes an entire
chapter to women’s narratives of cap-
tivity. Its title is, “A Fate Worse Than
Death,” and he does not use this an-
tique expression ironically. A captive
in an Indian camp was fair game for
any kind of degradation: “She was led
from her tent and every remnant of
clothing torn from her body. A child
that she was holding to
her breast was
wrenched from her
arms and she was
knocked to the
ground. In this nude
condition the demons
gathered round her
and while some held
her down by standing
on herwrists and their
claws clutched in her
hair, others outraged
her person. Not less than thirty re-
peated the horrible deed.”
Of two white women rescued by the
7th Cavalry in 1869 it was recorded:
“At first they had been sold back and
forth among the bucks for fifteen po-
nies each, but their last owners had only
paid two.” One victim “appeared to be
50 years old, although she was less than
25.” She had not only been repeatedly
raped but had received constant beat-
ings from jealous squaws.
Indians delighted in trophy-taking,
and prized some trophies over others.
Catherine German wrote of the death
of her sister: “Some time passed while
the Indians were parleying; they
seemed to make a choice between
Joanna and myself.... The Indians re-
moved our bonnets to see ifwe had long
hair.... My hair was short. ...Joanna was
sitting on a box that had been taken
from our wagon.... We heard the re-
port of a rifle and when we looked again,
our beloved sister, Joanna, was dead.
The Indians then scalped their long-
haired victim.... This all happened
within a very short time, and before
any of us could realize it, our once
happy family life was forever ended.”
Contemporary accounts show that
the lot of an Indian woman was not
much better than that of a white cap-
tive. Lieutenant James Steele wrote:
“She is beaten, abused, reviled, driven
like any other beast of burden.... She is
bought and sold; wife, mother, and pack
animal, joined in one hideous and hope-
less whole.”
War correspondent DeBenneville
Keim reported: “The relations between
the sexes is the same in nearly all
cases — that is, they [the women] are the
servants or slaves.... All labor per-
formed in an Indian village fall [s] to
the lot of the women.”
Elizabeth Burt, an army officer’s
wife, recorded her impressions of do-
mestic life among Indians: “I saw one
of them [a chief ] walk-
ing in front of a squaw,
whose back was bent
under a heavy sack of
something, probably
flour, while he, with
his tall body wrapped
in a gayly colored blan-
ket, carried nothing
but a stick. We
stopped to watch
them. Did he offer to
help her carry the load?
Not he, indeed; but on the contrary
would use the stick to poke her in the
back, to urge her on when... he found
her falling back with her heavy load. The
brute!”
Mrs. Burt believed she was allowed
to walk about in Indian camps because
“women are such inferior creatures in
the estimation of an Indian that ... I
engrossed little of their attention.”
Cheyenne Autumn
M r. Goodrich concludes his
book with an account of the
attempt by Chief Dull
Knife’s Cheyenne to escape from their
Kansas reservation and return to their
traditional hunting grounds. Histori-
ans usually treat this as an epic of ab-
original bravery against all odds. It
inspired the adulatory film Cheyenne
Autumn. Mr. Goodrich gives all due
credit to the Cheyenne as warriors, but
he presents the breakout as what it was:
a killing spree. Dull Knife’s braves
launched a reign of terror over Kansas
from which no white American — man,
woman, soldier, or civilian — was safe.
Mr. Goodrich de-
votes an entire chap-
ter to women’s
narratives of captivity.
Its title is, “A Fate
Worse Than Death”
Vol. IV, No. 3
79
The RESISTER
Despite such frank accounts of In-
dian behavior, Mr. Goodrichs book is
by no means uncritical of whites, whose
atrocities he also chronicles. Whites who
lived in closest contact with Indians
were those who hated them most. Some
repaid barbarity in the same coin. A
settler named George Porter, who had
seen his entire family murdered (and
all its female members raped before-
hand), went on a one-man vendetta in
which he is reported to have killed 108
Indians.
Men like Porter occasionally fought
in uniform as volunteer soldiers. Mr.
Goodrich actually begins his book with
what is generally regarded as the worst
case of white brutality in the Indian
Wars: the attack on the camp at Sand
Creek, Colorado. Here, in the winter
of 1864, Col. John Chivington led the
Union volunteers of the 3rd Colorado
Cavalry against the Cheyenne and
Arapaho of Chief Black Kettle. These
Indians had been granted a voucher of
safety by a regular army officer, and
Chivington caught them completely
unprepared. His men killed women and
children as well as men.
Unlike other historians, Mr.
Goodrich puts this massacre in context.
Chivington’s volunteers knew that dur-
ing the summer white civilians in the
area — men, women, and children —
had been slaughtered by Indians. Some
of the volunteers were probably related
to the victims, and their battle cry was
“Remember the murdered women and
children!” Regular troops who con-
ducted the bulk of the Indian campaigns
were generally far less brutal than
Chivington’s men because they had a
less personal stake in the fighting.
Morale Problems
T his said, the army that fought
the Indians was not America’s
finest. During the Civil War
over two million men served in the fed-
eral armies, and in May, 1865, one mil-
lion men were wearing Union blue. But
by the next year this force had shrunk
to a peace-time strength of 55, 000 men,
20,000 of whom were occupying the
South. It was a meager force that
guarded American lives and property
as settlers and railroads moved west.
The post-Civil War army also suf-
fered from severe morale problems. The
officer corps had been purged of its
Southern patrician bedrock, and re-
cruits were often beggars and recent
immigrants. M any soldiers tried to sur-
vive their “hitch” by avoiding battle.
Desertion was an almost debilitating
problem, and sometimes it was only the
cruelty of the enemy that inspired great
efforts from the men. One officer from
Gen. Patrick Connor’s 1 865 campaign
recalled:
About ten days before, the Indians
had captured one of our men, and had
tortured him and mangled his body in a
shocking manner. Our boys swore that
if they ever got hold of an Indian they
would cut him all to pieces, and they did.
Mr. Goodrich’s book captures the
insoluble essence of the problem. Given
the kind of enemy they proved to be, it
is surprising there were not more mas-
sacres of Indians. No matter how mili-
tarily impressive, the traditional Indian
way of life was incompatible with civi-
lization. It was a way of life that held
plunder and killing as the highest vir-
tues. Its passing should elicit few tears.
A poor Kansas farmer named John
Fergusson expressed in his homely way
the determination that finally drove the
Indian from the prairies:
I have been looking for the redskined
Deavels in on us every day for the last
month, they have been in and killed
settelars twenty miles north of me and
carried offgerls prisoners, the people here
is living in constant dread of being
attacted by them every day. the settelars
cant verry well leave, they have reasded
good fare crops of wheat and corn . . .
and the most of them thinks as I do that
we may as well stay here with what we
have got and run the risk of being skalped
as leave it. as for me I have lost over a
thousand Dolars runing from Indians
over the last five years and I am going to
stand by what I have got now to the last
minut.
It is the perspective of the people
who built the United States that has
been withheld from us by the purvey-
ors of popular culture. Scalp Dance re-
minds us of the nobility of America’s
settlers and of our debt to their memory.
This article is reprinted, with permis-
sion, from the March, 1998, issue of Ameri-
can Renaissance , Box 527, Oakton, VA
22124
(703) 716-0900.
80
Vol. IV, No. 3
c The instability of our laws is really an immense evil.”
Thomas Jefferson
IV3
NAME
ER
Post Office Box 35046
Fayetteville, NC 28303
Current Issue $10.00
Four Issues $35.00(Oneyear)
New Renewal
TERMS: Cash, money order, or check. (Please leave “pay to thf. ORDER of" blank . ) Please allow 5 weeks for your distribution to begin.
ADDRESS.
CITY
STATE ZIP
“The instability of our laws is really an immense evil.”
Thomas Jefferson
IV3
NAME.
ADDRESS.
CITY
STATE ZIP
Post Office Box 35046
Fayetteville, NC 28303
Current Issue $ 1 0.00
Four Issues $35.00(One year)
New Renewal
TERMS: Cash, money order, or check. (Please leave “pay to the order of" blank . ) Please allow 5 weeks for your distribution to begin.
IV3
"The instability ot our laws is really an immense evil.”
REm^ER
Thomas Jefferson
Post Office Box 35046
Fayetteville, NC 28303
NAME
ADDRESS
Current I ssue $ 1 0.00
CITY STATE ZIP
Four Issues $3 5. 00( One year)
New Renewal
TERMS: Cash, money order, or check. (Please leave “pay TO the ORDER OF" blank.) Please allow 5 weeks for your distribution to begin.
The instability of our laws is really an immense evil.”
Thomas Jefferson
IV3
NAME.
ADDRESS.
CITY
STATE ZIP
Post Office Box 35046
Fayetteville, NC 28303
Current Issue $ 1 0.00
Four Issues $35.00(One year)
New Renewal
TERMS: Cash, money order, or check. (Please leave “pay to the order of" blank . ) Please allow 5 weeks for your distribution to begin.
DEFYTHE COMMISSARS!
PASS ONE ON!
American Renaissance Conference
August 28 - 30, 1 998, Herndon, Virginia (near Washington, D.C.)
Why is Race the Problem That Will Not Go Away?
As President Clinton's initiative recognizes, race is America's greatest problem. Unfortu-
nately, his initiative will accomplish nothing because it dares not reassess egalitarian assump-
tions or question whether a multiracial society is desirable or even possible.
An American Renaissance conference observes no racial taboos. It is a rare opportunity to
meet the leading thinkers and boldest writers on the issues that most affect our future. This
will be a remarkable group of speakers and attendees— undeceived, uncensored, and commit-
ted to the defense of Western Civilization. Please join us for an extraordinary weekend of
good fellowship and vibrant dialogue.
Speakers will Include:
). Philippe Rushton - "Ethnic Nationalism and Genetic-Similarity Theory." Prof.
Rushton is the world's leading theorist on the origins and significance of racial differences. He
teaches psychology at the University of Western Ontario. His most recent book is Race, Evo-
lution and Behavior.
Michael Walker - "Nationalist Movements in Europe." Mr. Walker is a prominent
figure in the European "New Right," and is editor of The Scorpion, a continuing philosophical
and cultural commentary on Western Civilization.
Samuel Francis - "Race and the Real U.S. Constitution." Dr. Francis is a nationally
syndicated columnist and contributing editor to Chronicles magazine. The latest of his four
books is Revolution from the Middle. Dr. Francis was fired from his job as staff columnist at
The Washington Times for remarks made at a previous American Renaissance conference.
Steven Barry - "The Army's Equal Opportunity Commissariat." SFC Barry is re-
cently retired from the U.S. Army Special Forces. He is the editor of The Resistor, which is
"The Political Warfare Journal of the Special Forces Underground."
Glayde Whitney - "The Biological Reality of Race." Prof. Whitney is a former presi-
dent of the Behavior Genetics Association and teaches psychology, psychobiology, and neu-
roscience at Florida State University. He is a contributing editor to American Renaissance.
Jared Taylor - "What We Believe and Why We Fight for it." Mr. Taylor is the editor
of American Renaissance. He also edited the recently-released collection, The Real American
Dilemma : Race, Immigration, and the Future of America.
Michael Levin - "Is There a Superior Race?" Prof. Levin teaches philosophy at City
University of New York. His most recent book, Why Race Matters, is a devastating critique of
current racial-egalitarian dogma.
Frank Borzellieri - "A (Real) Conservative in New York City Politics." Mr. Borzel-
lieri is an elected member and Vice President of the Queens (NY), District 24 school board. In
November he will run for a seat in the New York State Senate.
. . . and other leading thinkers.
Register today for the third
American Renaissance Conference
August 28 - 30, 1998, Herndon, Virginia (near Washington, D.C.)
Why is Race the Problem That Will Not Go Away?
Conference Schedule:
The conference will begin on Friday, August 28th, with registration from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m.
The American Renaissance staff will give opening remarks, followed by a reception. There
will be latecomer registration at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, August 29th, and the program will
begin at 9:00 a.m.
There will be a banquet (separate charge of $25) on Saturday evening. Participants with
alternate dinner plans are welcome after the meal to hear the speaker. The program will re-
sume at 9:00 a.m. on Sunday the 30th and end at noon.
Gentlemen will wear jackets and ties.
Accommodations and Transportation:
The conference will be at the three-star Hilton Hotel at Dulles Airport near Washington.
Please make your own reservations for the nights of August 28th and 29th by calling 1-800-
445-8667. Please ask for the special "American Renaissance" rate of $79 a night. There is no
extra charge for double occupancy, so a spouse or friend can stay for free. The hotel offers
shuttle service from Dulles Airport— call from the courtesy telephone at the baggage claim.
There is free parking at the hotel for those who are driving. You may call 1-800-909-8124
for directions.
Discounted air tickets are-available from Up and Away Travel at 1-800-373-5261. Please
ask for the "American Renaissance" discount.
Registration Fee:
$75.00 per person, $100 after July 1. Payment must be received by August 20.
Participant(s): Telephone:! )
Address:
Address:_
Please register participant(s) @ $75 each (before July 1) $100 each (after July 1) $
Please reserve place(s) for the banquet @ $25 each $
Please make check payable to American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA 22124 Total: $
I (we) will will not stay at the Hilton.
Please call American Renaissance at (703) 716-0900 if you have questions.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11